Christmas Tree 3997 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 There still hasn't been a convincing explanation as to why they'd fake them. Couldn't live up to Kennedys promise. scare the soviets We're talking Nixon It's what governments do, take Roswell for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8946 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Couldn't live up to Kennedys promise. scare the soviets We're talking Nixon It's what governments do, take Roswell for example. Oh this'll be good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 Goodnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Ooooooh get her Rich, coming from one of the board's snidest bitches. The argument that a film was not made of an event because nothing went wrong is one of the stupidest arguments I've seen on here. I love wolfy by the way (he might be wrong or mad but he is interesting and polite and that is something that should be valued) and it's massively telling which posters are getting worked up over the content of his posts. At least you had the minimal levels of self awareness necessary to connect the dots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38535 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Rich, coming from one of the board's snidest bitches. The argument that a film was not made of an event because nothing went wrong is one of the stupidest arguments I've seen on here. I love wolfy by the way (he might be wrong or mad but he is interesting and polite and that is something that should be valued) and it's massively telling which posters are getting worked up over the content of his posts. At least you had the minimal levels of self awareness necessary to connect the dots. Oooh, get her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Well that's more snide than anything I've ever written, you twat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The argument 'no film has been made because the event was not a disaster' is profoundly stupid and the dismissive way a simple, interesting but perhaps flawed argument was responded to is a good example of what i consider snide behaviour. Rudely dismissing what people say, with a flawed argument yourself should always be avoided. I find the topics interesting, we know that President's Kennedy and Nixon were involved in huge conspiracies with global consequences. Whilst certain theories are ludicrous, the enquiring mind is exactly what brought us watergate and should be valued in itself. Conspiracy is just another name for unproven corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8946 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't think it's snide to respond to a man who states that he has an open mind, and then obstinately dismisses anything that doesn't fit his view. I don't think that's snide, I think it shows him the same respect he affords others. I for one don't buy his politeness as anything but a veil to hide his stubborn ignorance behind. As an aside, I don't think any one was saying that the only reason that a film about the moon landing wasn't filmed is because it wasn't a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6766 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) I was around at the time, it was the height of the cold war (a real war with all but the shooting), if it had not happened, irrespective of any hair brained theories, the simple fact is that Russians would have exposed it in a MASSIVE propoganda coup. Similarly for the rather deranged Wolfy, if Russia had not put a man in space the Americans would have similarly debunked it with great gusto. Unless of course they were in it together (which in Wolfy world is probably a realistic scenario) but it is absolutely inconceivable in the real world as was. It happened, get over it. Edited August 1, 2012 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Well that's more snide than anything I've ever written, you twat. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?/topic/33194-Moon-Landings/page__view__findpost__p__1104262 If the cap fits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I don't think it's snide to respond to a man who states that he has an open mind, and then obstinately dismisses anything that doesn't fit his view. I don't think that's snide, I think it shows him the same respect he affords others. I for one don't buy his politeness as anything but a veil to hide his stubborn ignorance behind. As an aside, I don't think any one was saying that the only reason that a film about the moon landing wasn't filmed is because it wasn't a disaster. All 3 of your posts on page 6 make that exact point Each one as stupid as the next. I'm just saying what I see, not ganging up on anyone cos i'm missing Leazes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?/topic/33194-Moon-Landings/page__view__findpost__p__1104262 If the cap fits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 As I said in the OP, I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all and only gave this some thought yesterday as it was on the news here. Having given it some thought it is the technological achievement that just seems so far fetched for the 60's. Had this taken place this week I would be in awe of the detail needed to achieve it, never mind over 40 years ago. Think of the technology back then, the shitty cars, massive gramophones etc and then consider this achievement. Sending a craft into space, having it travel 1/4 million miles with accuracy (forget sat nav). Then split in two and land on the moon. Manage to take off and dock with the orbiting craft before travelling 1/4 million miles home. And then to do it and take a car with you! Would have thought it would have been a doddle to pop back these days in a space shuttle! Maybe too many can see what's going on in space these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8946 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) All 3 of your posts on page 6 make that exact point Each one as stupid as the next. I'm just saying what I see, not ganging up on anyone cos i'm missing Leazes. Then you're not understanding the point and each time you post, you're being snidier than the last. Re: the last point, my frustration with wolfy or CT has nothing to do with Leazes, Nothing what so ever. What's more, I don't think anybody is responding to wolfy and CT in a manner that has changed since Leazes' banning. In fact, I'm pretty sure people were deriding wolfy's ignorance and CT's flights of fancy from one weeks Next Big Thing to the next, for weeks. So frankly Chez, your last point is a total fabrication and says more about you, than anything else. Personally, I don't mind CT's playful doubt, his seems at least based on no more than a casual whim. Parky tried to explain the physics of space propulsion, and was ignored/shot down. Wolfy may be all smiles and "well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it", but that doesn't make his ignorance any less rude in my eyes. fwiw, I do believe we landed on the moon, that we've been back a few times and that we're miles from sending manned missions to Mars. I don't believe the risk has been worth it in the eyes of the money men. I'd say the reason we sent a huge moon buggy and men the 1st time, is because we hadn't the technology to achieve the same results with robotics and automatons. I'd say the reasons we've not seen more moon landings is simply because it's not worth it. Edited August 1, 2012 by The Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Decent video detailing technically complicated this was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsweeney 0 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) The truth is that the rocket does have something to push against: namely, its own fuel. Let's illustrate with an example you kids can try at home. First, you need to get yourself into some sort of frictionless situation. Wearing ice skates on a slippery ice rink would be good, or maybe your office has a chair that rolls really well on a hard surface. Next, you'll need a medicine ball. You are the rocket and the medicine ball is your fuel. Toss the medicine ball. You'll notice that as you shove the medicine ball forwards, you yourself lurch backwards. Ta-da, the miracle of physics! (If you think this is because the medicine ball pushed on the air, then try the experiment without the medicine ball--just push on the air with your hands, see how far you lurch backwards.) Newton's Third Law is usually expressed as, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," and you can also think of it as "Forces always come in pairs." While you are pushing on the medicine ball, Newton's Third Law says that the medicine ball is also pushing on you. Thus, you are accelerated by the force acting (backward) on you by the medicine ball. Never mind that it was you who decided to start the pushing in the first place; you can't push on the ball without having the ball push back. Forces always come in pairs. Of course, rockets work on more sophisticated principles than just tossing fuel out the back. First, the fuel is burned and its hot exhaust gases are expelled at very high velocity (if you toss the medicine ball faster, your body experiences greater backward force). And the rocket's exhaust nozzle has a narrowing so as to squirt the exhaust gasses out even faster, like putting your thumb over the end of a garden hose. Exhaust from chemical propulsion (i.e., fuel-burning propulsion) is typically expelled at 2 km/s (= 4500 mph), and your average rocket mass at launch is 80-85% propellant (fuel + oxidizer), most of which eventually gets squirted out. " Sorry Wolfy... I was waiting for someone to mention inertia. Edited August 1, 2012 by dbsweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsweeney 0 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Has there ever been a hollywood film made about the moon landing? Not that I am using that in this discussion, I just dont recall ever seeing one. Seems odd that the yanks wouldnt make a film about their greatest ever achievement. Try For All Mankind ... terrific film (and ace soundtrack by Brian Eno!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsweeney 0 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) My god ... the new season can't start soon enough for me. Edited August 1, 2012 by dbsweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Yeah, because no-one else insults CT do they? And certainly not repeatedly on a frequent basis either? I stand by my points anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 My god ... the new season can't start soon enough for me. I was just thinking that. You'd think the Olympics would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 @ the synchronised periods among posters in this thread. Mint. As I said earlier. Apollo 13 is the ONLY non-fiction space movie to make any significant money. Even that was a relatively small budget film for 1995 ($50m compared to $60m on Under Seige 2, $100m on Batman and $175m Waterworld). Interested to hear why that can be dismissed so easily as a reason that apollo movies don't receive more investment Chez? Wouldn't dismiss the dramatic reasons so easily either tbh, though I don't think they are primary. It all went wrong on the Apollo 13 mission and NASA defied the odds to bring home the endangered astronauts, loads of drama top play with there. While Apollo 11 was arguably our greatest achievement, it went swimmingly. If you add drama to it that wasn't there you'll get hammered, but if you stick to the facts, it's pretty dry, much more effective as documentary than drama. The reality is greater than any fictionalised version could be. There have been a couple of Apollo 11 movies though, TV versions only, sub-par as you'd expect... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115560/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1251357/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17579 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Couple of things. An Apollo conspiracy is much less plausible than the official story on every level. I haven't heard of one fact the conspiracy believer's have made that hasn't been adequately debunked; I've read quite extensively about it. I can see no plausible motive or means of 'getting away with it' either. If the fact that the landers and footprints can now be visualised isn't enough to persuade the doubters, there really is no hope. Secondly, anyone who believes the Universe revolves around the Earth is either monumentally stupid or on a wind up, however polite they are. It's an attack on enlightened thinking and they should get off the Internet and go live in a cave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I was around at the time, it was the height of the cold war (a real war with all but the shooting), if it had not happened, irrespective of any hair brained theories, the simple fact is that Russians would have exposed it in a MASSIVE propoganda coup. Similarly for the rather deranged Wolfy, if Russia had not put a man in space the Americans would have similarly debunked it with great gusto. Unless of course they were in it together (which in Wolfy world is probably a realistic scenario) but it is absolutely inconceivable in the real world as was. It happened, get over it. This is what I used to think before I learned to read and write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 As I said in the OP, I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all and only gave this some thought yesterday as it was on the news here. Having given it some thought it is the technological achievement that just seems so far fetched for the 60's. Had this taken place this week I would be in awe of the detail needed to achieve it, never mind over 40 years ago. Think of the technology back then, the shitty cars, massive gramophones etc and then consider this achievement. Sending a craft into space, having it travel 1/4 million miles with accuracy (forget sat nav). Then split in two and land on the moon. Manage to take off and dock with the orbiting craft before travelling 1/4 million miles home. And then to do it and take a car with you! Would have thought it would have been a doddle to pop back these days in a space shuttle! Maybe too many can see what's going on in space these days The lunar rover: Huge tyres innit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 I'm sure (if true) Apollo 11 will have loads to offer. The sheer drama of landing on the moon, seeing earth etc etc should be enough on it's own however I'm sure there will be lots of real life moments in space, at mission control and with families to bulk it up. There's always drama in every historical event that can be used be that JFK, Nixon etc etc. I'm going to tweet Spielberg and get him on the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now