PetaPixel

Apollo 11 Launch at 500 Frames per Second

This amazing video by Spacecraft Films shows the July 16, 1969 launch of the Apollo 11 mission that landed the first humans on the moon. The camera was rolling at a whopping 500 frames per second, allowing the first 30 seconds of the launch to be slowed down into this 8-minute narrated video of pure awesomeness.

(via Boing Boing)


 
 
  • Pingback: Hello from Great Britain - Page 2

  • spacecoastkilla

    I work at the Kennedy Space Center.

    As pointed out – Russia would've LOVED to have caught us lying about lunar landings.
    Besides, we've got rock samples in a closed safe in our office.

    But, for arguments sake – let's say Apollo 11 was faked.
    Ok –
    The US fools the worlds!
    Then we do it again, then again, and again, again, and again???
    Not a chance.

  • deebee3

    Thanks David,
    I with many others participated on the Apollo program at Autonetics researching and producing the guidance systems, specifically “thin-film” electronic circuitry which was the precursor to today's computer chips. It was a tremendous effort by many using basic science and newly discovered technology to achieve the goal. And we did. Went to and from the moon!

  • bo

    I wonder if there were any Russian spies in NASA ? There was a spy inside the Manhattan Project (the group that built the atomic bomb). I read the book and it was a super secret project yet the Russians were able to get diagrams of the Atomic Bomb.

    My point is if we faked going to the moon, surely the Russians would have known about it and Squealed on the United States. I'm sure there must have been a few spies within NASA at the time.

  • Phrank

    We apologize for not taking you and your insane theories seriously…mr. pooface.

    I myself did not watch it. I've only watched a hundred OTHER god-awful amateur videos explaining why we didn't land on the moon that don't stand up to the basest scrutiny, the main point of all of which is that the burden of proof lands on the OTHER side…because apparently it's much easier to involve thousands upon thousands of people in a grotesque conspiracy, than it is to simply land on the moon. “No small feat to stay on earth” indeed. The one linked to in these comments MUST'VE been different. It probably had the smoking gun, a secret tape of JFK going “we MUST not let the world know we don't actually know how to shoot rockets into space.” But I don't know, because I won't watch it because EVERY OTHER MOON HOAX CONSPIRACY THEORY VIDEO IS UTTER CRAP.

  • http://twitter.com/will9341 Larry Williams

    Just curious as to peoples thoughts re: the John Lear (and others) disclosures of manned flights using anti-gravity vehicles during the Apollo missions. Several contradictions by Lear in the same video(s).

  • Alex

    um… yes they did, Apollo 13 never made, that's the one they made a movie about it. Apollo 11 was the first one to land on the moon, you know, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, the first two guys to walk on the moon?

  • http://1skyliner.com/ 1SKYLINER

    FYI everyone…here's something I found on the net..”Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts,” this could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere… like the Moon.

  • http://1skyliner.com/ 1SKYLINER

    FYI everyone…here's something I found on the net..”Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts,” this could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere… like the Moon.

  • SipSop

    A. nearly every conspiracy theory (ie this, bush taking down the towers, the pentagon was hit by a rocket not a plane lawl) are bullshit spread by people with an ulterior motive. It is always about an underlying political agenda and usually there are 100 reasons the theory is bs for everyone one reason they use to support their claim. But my main question here is this….

    Whats the internet rule about saying “I am from –insert the place being talked about— and therefore i know this…”. I mean, yes maybe you are. However, I would hope that anyone who works at a place like NASA signs a contract saying they aren't allowed to talk about internal affairs (not that this is private but you know what i mean), but this sort of thing is becoming more common on forums and I haven't seen any sort of conclusion on the matter. Usually when someone claims to know something because they are “on the inside” they are just ignored, but what should the forum trolling community as a whole do in this situation? I'll kill myself in 3 days if no one responds!!!!!!!!!!

    (ps no offense to the people who said something like that on this forum. You may very well work there. Just curious as to how other people feel when they see this occuring as well. )

  • Pingback: Apollo 11 Launch at 500 Frames per Second | williampond.com

  • http://www.adventuresportsholidays.com/blog/ Mark Pawlak

    Something for you http://tinyurl.com/34jnrlv

    “Apollo: This is for all mankind”

    I write an Adventure Sports Blog, an unrelated experience, apart from the sense of awe, we perhaps share in the face of such beauty.

    Enjoy

  • http://www.adventuresportsholidays.com/blog/ Mark Pawlak

    There is compelling evidence to suggest that moon landings were faked, however, there is compelling evidence for a lot of things when it is taken and used in a certain way.

    I think that in all the years that have passed, the fact that there have been no credible revelations by someone who worked in this project, is telling enough.

    Look at it this way: Evolution and religion are still at odds, each can find compelling evidence to support their claims – at least enough to convince millions of people.

    It often depends on what you want to believe, as much as what there is to believe.

  • Pingback: Link Roundup 05-01-2010

  • bob

    I'm sure Russia knew what was going on. They most likely had someone spying on us.
    Like I said before they had a spy inside the group that built the first Atomic bomb and that project was super secret yet the Russians were able to obtain diagrams of the bomb.

  • adapa

    Perhaps you can explain why the Russians did not tell the world that we were lying. After all, when you consider the bitter rivalry coupled with the fact that they were watching us very closely would certainly have known if we tried to fake anything

  • Pingback: hey Rocket Boy, « Precinct 201's Blog

  • innomen

    Just to be clear I'm not of the opinion we faked it, I'm just saying of the options, in my opinion it's the more likely. But unlikely things happen all the time. However, to play devil's advocate I'll respond.

    Yours is an argument from authority (governments) and presupposes the rather fantastic claim that no misinformation campaign is ever successful simply because the targets are powerful. If your faith is strong I can't break it. ¯(°_o)/¯

    On the one hand imagine what it would take to prove the negative, that we did not go, or prove the positive that we did fake it. They would have to effectively goto the moon to prove the one, or come here to prove the other.

    And on the other hand, who says they didn't know? Who were the American people going to believe? Who was the rest of the world going to believe? Did it matter either way? Ultimately if it was a lie it was a lie to the American people and the scientific communities of non super power nations.

    I think the majority of defenses of our moon landing ignore the political realities of then And now.

    Both sides lied to their people all the time. Even if it was a propaganda victory it was temporary. They probably did know that we were capable of it, we just lied about the timing. Ultimately if we did fake it, I'm certain they knew, and looking at their reaction I'm certain they didn't care all that much.

  • James

    The Soviets tracked Apollo 11 every inch of the way to the Moon. I'm sure if Apollo 11 didn't make it to the moon then the Soviets would've been the first to mention it.

  • Pingback: Another Fruitloop » Blog Archiv » One Small Step For A Man

  • adapa

    Judging by your last paragraph, you must not have been an adult during any part of the Cold War. The Cold War was more than just a military arms race. It was probably the longest and most intense PROPAGANDA WAR in our recent history. BOTH SIDES would go through great lengths and look for every possible means and opportunity to embarrass and discredit each other on the world stage.

    Spending so much time and resources on a propaganda war of this magnitude while passing up the PERFECT opportunity to embarrass the USA would not have made sense to the Russians on any level. Your ignorance of this illustrates that you either have no idea what the Cold War was about or you have no clue what a propaganda war is.

    Oh by the way, having worked for the government, I can tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for so many thousands of people to keep a secret like that for so long (especially since that would include some Russians would love to discredit us). However, one does not need to work for the government to know this. Anyone who has not lived under a rock and has watched the news knows that inside information gets leaked to the media on a continual basis.

  • innomen

    “IMPOSSIBLE” ? Really? That's a strong word. That's also a positive claim. Good luck proving it.

    And your focus on me personally (Ad Hominem) and making some sort of argument from authority (I was there, therefor I'm right) shows me that you have no logical rebuttal.

    Why does it have to be many thousands of people? I'm sure the conspiracy people can shave that number down considerably, since the TV was enough to convince 99% of the world, and apparently petrified wood was enough to convince the international scientific community, it seems to be the actual number of people who absolutely needed to know could have been very small.

    Time is of the essence. People have very short attention spans. Solid proof of a faked moon landing now would be a curiosity at best. It's like how we reacted to the Hindenburg, we know the paint was effectively made of thermite now, but does anyone care? No. Same with the moon landings. They SHOULD care, no question, but they don't. And if you think otherwise, you're the one living under a rock.

    A brief stroll in our society shows what Americans really care about. By and large they care about looking cool, being entertained, making money, and getting laid, the end.

    3. Your faith in the mass media is disturbing. Wikileaks, hello. Go put “HITB SecConf 2009 Malaysia: Wikileaks 1/8 ” into YouTube search and be educated. Besides even the conspiracy people admit we've been back since. It would be absolutely impossible to prove the timing at this point. And would have been nearly impossible to prove back then as it would have been a fresh state secret and covering it up would have amounted to threats and destruction of evidence.

    Seriously, what is the purpose of the CIA/FSB in your world? You really seem to think you absolutely can't be fooled. That attitude makes you an easy mark. Where is your scientific skepticism? If I showed you grain 10 FPS broadcast video of alien first contact at Roswell would you buy it?

    Pardon me for not taking the government's word on what reads like a patriotic fairytale of good government and pluck and determination. Go read Howard Zinn's a people's history of the united states and maybe then you'll see why I have reason to doubt their word, on virtually everything.

    I can't imagine a way to prove that it happened When They Say beyond a shadow of a doubt anyway, so really its pointless to argue about. The first people that actually do something with the moon are going to be corporate anyway, not government so I don't see what it matters.

  • John

    Yeah…
    This was to make show Russians that they can… but they never did it. Why was american flag waving????? when there is no air on MOON???? TELL ME NASA TELL US … Why US fools the world?

  • adapa

    Oh, so anyone who points out gaps in your historical knowledge is committing an ad hominem attack. (Or is it that you still failed to answer the question?)

    As I said, it is impossible because (as I have pointed out) keeping that secret would also mean forcing the Russians to shut up. Considering that they would have had every means, motive, and opportunity to embarrass us (along with having a bigger military than we did), it would have been impossible to keep them quiet.

    Also, consider that there was a huge anti-government/anti-establishment movement going on in the United States during that time period which often led to violent protests. Many people in the US would have been a willing and receptive audience for any anti US government propaganda. In fact, Howard Zinn (a prime example of this) would have loved to point out that the Moon Landings were fake but he chose to avoid mentioning them. This is quite telling. But I guess that pointing out your ignorance of the anti-government sentiment during this period is another ad hominem attack.

    Don't take this the wrong way but YouTube (while entertaining) is not a reliable source of historical education.

    Good day.

  • innomen

    Saying I'm wrong because I wasn't there is not the same as exposing gaps. What I said is what I said, but if you wish to straw man me, be my guest. My contentions stand as you've produce no new arguments, regardless of where I've been, and frankly I could be a turnip and it wouldn't matter That why the personal attack and the argument from authority are invalid.

    Ontologically speaking it doesn't matter who or even what I am with regard to the validity of my statements. Look into logic.

    I invite you to refute my contentions if you can. the only way you can do that is to prove the moon landings were genuine beyond a shadow of a doubt and that they July 20 '69. Good luck. Not a lot of HD video from that era and the original recordings have been lost.

    You're not reading what I'm typing or your being willfully obtuse. I'm saying the Russians knew and I'm saying calling us on our bluff (if it was a bluff, again I'm not saying the landings were faked, merely that their being faked seems more likely) in this unique instance would have been more trouble than it was worth.

    You seem to have a great many misconceptions about the nature of international stress. But of course that's not shocking. Billions perhaps trillions of dollars have been spent to see that this is the case. The use of deception as a tool of statecraft is understandable and defensible.

    My reasons for the Russians staying out of it apply to domestic activists as well. They have even less access to government, and the moon for that matter. Besides I'm sure someone said something at the time they were just ignored. According to Wiki the first book dedicated to the subject was published in 74. But you bring up an interesting point.

    Perhaps no one noticed it was fake at all, Russians included until that period of time. The international situation was quite different by then.

    But really, can you not imagine a situation where you know someone is lying but you also know you're going to be categorically unable to prove it and so you refrain from trying? Have you never heard the phrase choose your battles?

    Also, are you seriously going to sit there and try to damage Wikileaks credibility because it's being discussed on YouTube? That's patently absurd, you might as well say that the video above is false because it appears on vimeo.

    If you want to pretend the TV is an unimpeachable source of data, be my guest. Personally I prefer to retain the ability to think critically.

    Good day to you as well :)

  • bob

    Let's say there was a cover up, we never landed on the moon….I'm sure all of would agree that this would have to be well organized & their would have been memos, notes and other documents left behind.

    Well where are these secret documents, memos etc ? Surely someone by now would have discovered them.

  • Unchained

    It's not waving, it doesn't move. It's made to look like it is. I mean why would the flag be waving in a movie studio? Where there typically isn't air blowing?

    I think the Russians were smart enough then (remember they had lots of spies) to not be fooled by such a thing and would have called the US out immediately.

    Use your head and think and then people wouldn't treat you like a fool ;)

  • homebrewed

    Apollo 17 left a transmitter up there that is still transmitting today. Conspiracy idiots.

  • fakespleens

    Actually the Soviets didn't have anyone inside the Manhattan Project, a Jewish couple, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, paid off an American working on the project to get information about the atomic bombs. But for the sake of argument if the moon landings were a hoax I'm sure the Soviets could have come up with enough money to convince someone to spill the beans…

  • http://www.autodialerforsalespeople.com pThomas

    Nice, post. Amazing in super slow-mo.

  • huseyin hasan
  • Khadgars

    Sam, lets for a moment forget about the hundred of pounds of moon rocks that were taken back to earth on the Apollo missions. Let us also ignore the fact that we not only have satellite images of the FOOT PRINTS of the Apollo astronauts, but we also have pristine images of the Rovers that were used, the tracks they left, the Lunar lander that was left behind, the experiments we are STILL used today. We can also ignore the fact that not a SINGLE NASA employee has leaked any information regarding the bogus claims you have made.

    But the one thing we can not ignore is the fact that the Soviets had just as sophisticated observation technology as we did, whom were observing the first missions the same way we were. If the moon landings were faked, the Soviets would have been the first too know and would have brought it to the worlds attention in a hear beat.

    Whats even more amusing is many of the reasons people like your self claim we did not land on the moon. A common one is that in the pictures taken on the moon, their is no stars in the photos. This demonstrated a clear lack of basic physics and camera knowledge. The lenses used on the Apollo missions were 16 MM and 70 MM, which did not only them to focus on the stars above. They were still captured but were far to faint compared to regolith of the lunar surface.

    Another example is the Van Allen Belt, which people like your self Sam claim would kill the astronauts when they passed through it on their way to the moon. Indeed the Van Allen Belt is dangerous for sure, the amount of time spent in the radiation belt was minimal and posed little to no risk to the astronauts.

    I can go on and on and disprove any conspiracy theory regarding the moon landing that you can provide.

  • Khadgars

    This is on of the most ridiculous claims. Go back to physics class John before you spout your foolishness.

    The Flag wasn't waving at all, it was maid out of wire mesh that NASA created that could also be rolled up. There are no videos of the flag waving in wind. The only times that it waves is when it is being buffeted by the exhaust of the ascending rocket, it is being pushed into the ground, the pole or the ground near the pole is being disturbed by an astronaut, or it the oscillations of such are damping right after such an event. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

  • Khadgars

    Snowbird, the reason for not returning to the moon is simple. Going to the moon was extremely expensive, over 4 times as expensive per launch than today's Shuttle, which in of its self is extremely expensive.

    Once the Saturn V vehicles were decommissioned, we moved onto making LEO access cheap and accessible. Remember, LEO much pretty much ignored going to the moon except for training purposes and no effort was made to increase access to it. Hence the birth of the Space Shuttle, which in theory was designed to heavily reduce cost to access to LEO. In the end, it came such a herculean effort to refurbish each shuttle after each launch that the cost effectiveness of a reusable vehicle was heavily diminished, and actually become more expensive than traditional vehicles of the past. The problem has been, that we've been stuck with the Shuttle for 30 years and there just hasn't been enough money or political will to match NASA in a new direction.

    The Space Shuttle will be retired at the end of the year, and by 2015 NASA will begin building its new Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, that could take us to the moon, but will more than likely take us to NEO (asteroid or comet).

  • Elder Favors

    Yeah, it's one of the more fascinating things I've seen online lately. I wish more large organizations that had the money to buy these slow-motion cameras would release more of this types of footage. It's so fun to see all of these little details that would ordinarily be hidden.

    As a technology addict, programmer, and geek, I love this stuff. Especially seeing the little bits of debris shaking off the shuttle. Wow that is hot. (literally I guess, LOL)

    Elder Favors
    SQL Developer
    http://www.dirtyphonebook.com

  • snowbird2020

    OK…Hope it doesn't blow up and kill everybody…I never got over that and never will!

  • innomen

    Love

    I've never explicitly written about love before.

    It's been so commercialized and co opted its hard to even think about he concept,a nd that on top of the ludicris practice of failing to divide the term up like it needs to be.

    When I hear “love” I hear “Og” by and large since love means whatever the hell you want to to mean within very vague guidelines.

    But the point of this essay is just to talk about what love menas to me.

    I suppose I should start by clarifying that I mean love for something that is or was at one point fuckable.

    Now you may think that was needlessly rude but I thinkit comes right to the point and really is the quickest best way to express the thinking. For one it cuts the whole friends and family bit right out of the picture.

    Now as my readers know after a 4 second glance at the rest of my work, I loath monogamy. The concept of being appluaeded for wanting to be stingy with the greatest human gift is beyond deplorable for me. Its like the idea that people have to wor for someone else to earn the right to live or that hitting a kid is ok. I often feel like depriving the brains that hold these absurd ideas of blood suply with a quick deft flick.

    But I digress. Having established that the love in question is the love of a potential mate, let me try to describe what love is to me.

    To put it somewhat clincally love is a Profound emntal attachment. A state of mind where the theory regarding what is occurring in the skull of another becomes as profoundly important to your well being as your own subjective experience. Or put another way, when you care about a person nearly as much as yourself. Now I say nearly because of my view on selflessness being a myth since charity feels good, else why do it. But again, that's a matter of record.

    perhaps the best way I can share my idea of love with any accuracy is to describe how I feel when I imagine the perfect mate. I'll skip the physical details, I'm not trying to write porn here.

    Just let me trya nd convey what I feel when I put myself in the same mental room with the avatar of want. My own personal Venus.

    First of all I feel accepted. Accepted the way a cat accepts you plus warmth. No animosity. No pretense.

    Sheila 3.2

    Now that's what I call Friendly AI. :) But seriously, this is a flawless depiction of the synthetic equivalent of the creature featured in my other video from star trek. She is Sheila 3.2 from the movie Virtuosity. And I am serious when I say I think she could save the world. For my rambling rant on what I mean by that… http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=406 This movie was very forward thinking. Combining elements of nanotechnology and synthetic reality gracefully must have been a difficult task. Predating The Matrix and it's rendition of synthetic reality by almost 5 years and the popular nanotech fad by a similar amount of time was also impressive. Sadly the movie ultimately is just another fear the evil computers trip, but at least we don't have a massive girlfriend hunt and friendly AI was at least passingly covered via the android and of course sheila herself, who obviously goes well beyond Friendly. Also we have the benefit of a real human to blame. In a way Sid 6.7 is just the murder weapon, his programmer is really the movie's villain. But really, I'm not sure that's an improvement. Anyway, just thought I'd share since Sheila's great great great grandmother Roxxxy is right around the corner. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10432597-1…. ————————- Dialog as follows: ————————- Pawn to position three, Castle, Bishop to rook seven, Rook to pawn four, Queen to bishop seven, Knight to rook two, Queen to bishop two, Pawn to bishop five, Hi, Clyde, What are you waiting for? I want you to come inside, Clyde, I'm so tired of playing alone, Oh, man. Oh, man. She just keeps getting better and better. – She's interactive, Clyde. – Very interactive, Sheila 3.2 is collecting information from 136 aspects of your physiology. Your heart rate, pupil dilation, vocal intonation, syntax… – Any detectable tumescence. – Oh, yeah Hey, man, let me use your gear for a little while. I want you, Clyde, Queen to knight seven, I want you inside here with me now, Come on – Program terminated, – I have a more productive idea. You've been trying to incubate a nano-tech android. Mr Wallace thinks that my software is the solution to your problems. May I suggest we begin by incubating Sheila 3.2? Brilliant. Genius. Grab her module and follow me. Enacting Sid 6.7. Sid! Reilly's right. She's one of your… finest compositions. – Nice. – Yes Tight cords. – Do you like this, Sheila? – You know I do, – Do you like this, Daryl? – Come on, Module out. Was I bad? – Are you gonna punish me? – Be quiet, Sheila. Why don't you just kill me? Module out

    ———–

    Cheaters and Tyrants: The destiny of all digital worlds.

    In every game where people interact, in every communication system where voices can be heard simultaneously, an argument can be made, however flawed, for human moderation.

    Nearly every forum, chat room, gaming zone, bulletin board, and blog will from either tradition or invention have a completely superfluous aristocracy.

    In a digital environment where the initial utilization of power could lead to a perfect direct democracy never will that option be chosen.

    Under no circumstances will the opportunity to create corruption, cronyism, and mafia go unexploited.

    —-

    Criminals

    Criminal behavior is all sourced by the same demons that haunt all of humanity. The process has been generally and philosophically understood for a millennia, all humans have needs, and if those needs are not met we turn into the most frightening predator the cosmos has yet divulged. A predator that will pursue those needs with ruthless and fearless determination that knows no pain or death.

    But, we also have a near infinite capacity for compassion, forgiveness, and change. The need for revenge is a relic from our primordial past, a way to cohere a group through

    *facepalm*

    Yes yes yes let's all just suspend critical thinking and logical skepticism to evade the ridicule of our peers. I've been made fun of on noes, I better submit to the will of the group right away.

    Name calling and insults are the mark of true genius right?

    After all, a vote is always a reliable means of determining truth, that's why experimentation and evidence are not required for construction of valid hypotheses and theories, right? I mean the guy on the TV said so, and then we took a vote, so that makes it true, yes?

    If you people seriously think its more likely that we landed people on the moon and brought them back alive in 1969 using an aluminum can, a bunch of explosives, and a calculator, than it was that our government probably lied in an effort to evade nuclear war and preserve the American way of life, be my guest. You're perfectly entitled to that opinion.

    I respectfully disagree.

    Here again for the record, since apparently very few of you have reading comprehensions to match your snideness; I don't know if we went to the moon in 69, and I find the narrative of the claim that we did unlikely.

    Having an opinion on which is the more likely isn't the same as having an opinion on which actually occurred. Maybe if I put it in a popup book you guys would understand. /frustrated

    You people keep attacking me like I'm a conspiracist and as a result I'm inclined to defend them because your attacks are all intellectually bankrupt. They amount to slander and attempts at shaming, and I loath that behavior on principal.

    Not one of you asked me specifics and then offered to refute, which should be easy by now. You jumped right into assumption and insult. So before you call me a witch and cart me off to the stake at the behest of your TV masters let me make it abundantly clear, I can defend a group of people without being a member of that group. If you weren't all so self obsessed, you'd be able to understand that concept.

    It's called principal, look into it.

    You're like a bunch of radical fundamentalist Muslims with your intolerance of a dissenting viewpoint, which is hilarious because I ultimately agree with you. My point is simply that what apparently occurred is absurdly unlikely. Kinda like winning the lottery, and we all know no one has ever won the lottery right?

    But no, you children can't even handle that, not only must I agree with the rest of the class, I must apparently have some unshakable faith that teacher's word is law, that the very idea of any deception from them is literally ridiculous, and join in the making fun.

    I'm so tired of intellectual cronyism. Face it, you're just as ignorant of the events of that day on the surface of the moon as I am. Even if you were alive then, unless you were about 240 thousand miles away from where I am now, all you have to go on is someone or something's word. The difference between us is I don't feel the need to cleave to some authority figure's version of events to retain my self esteem. I'm aware that saying “I'm not sure” is actually a mark of intelligence and worthy of respect.

    Let's be clear, I'm not talking here to the scientists who have attempted to refute the conspiracy theorist's assertions one by one with hard evidence (clavius.org for the win). No one commenting on this thread is from that group. The only people on here are the faithful armchair labcoats that know as much about rocket science and history as I know about the joys of motherhood.

    I'm talking to a bunch of people who watched a discovery channel special this one time and think they've got it all figured out. People who have CLEARLY never had an unshakable belief and then tested it and found to their total shock that reality disagreed. Having never tasted such absolute refutation you people apparently don't even have a concept of the value of skepticism or the purpose of experimentation.

    No real scientist is responding to my claim, which amounts to an opinion, because they know it's futile. It would be like arguing which color is prettiest. At best the only rational response that can be made is an attempt to convince me personally that my criteria is wrong. And you haters haven't even asked me what my criteria is. Because you don't need to know, you have your state assigned faith and that's enough for you. Well awesome possum, some of us need more.

    The burden of proof is on the claimant.

    Fact: You people claim we landed two humans on the moon in 1969, walked them around, took pictures, and brought stuff back safely.

    Prove it.

    The only thing I have to prove is that I have an opinion.

    Your move.

  • innomen

    Sorry about the older beginning I was using a draft document and pasted a bunch of unrelated stuff hehe.

    *facepalm*

    Yes yes yes let's all just suspend critical thinking and logical skepticism to evade the ridicule of our peers. I've been made fun of on noes, I better submit to the will of the group right away.

    Name calling and insults are the mark of true genius right?

    After all, a vote is always a reliable means of determining truth, that's why experimentation and evidence are not required for construction of valid hypotheses and theories, right? I mean the guy on the TV said so, and then we took a vote, so that makes it true, yes?

    If you people seriously think its more likely that we landed people on the moon and brought them back alive in 1969 using an aluminum can, a bunch of explosives, and a calculator, than it was that our government probably lied in an effort to evade nuclear war and preserve the American way of life, be my guest. You're perfectly entitled to that opinion.

    I respectfully disagree.

    Here again for the record, since apparently very few of you have reading comprehensions to match your snideness; I don't know if we went to the moon in 69, and I find the narrative of the claim that we did unlikely.

    Having an opinion on which is the more likely isn't the same as having an opinion on which actually occurred. Maybe if I put it in a popup book you guys would understand. /frustrated

    You people keep attacking me like I'm a conspiracist and as a result I'm inclined to defend them because your attacks are all intellectually bankrupt. They amount to slander and attempts at shaming, and I loath that behavior on principal.

    Not one of you asked me specifics and then offered to refute, which should be easy by now. You jumped right into assumption and insult. So before you call me a witch and cart me off to the stake at the behest of your TV masters let me make it abundantly clear, I can defend a group of people without being a member of that group. If you weren't all so self obsessed, you'd be able to understand that concept.

    It's called principal, look into it.

    You're like a bunch of radical fundamentalist Muslims with your intolerance of a dissenting viewpoint, which is hilarious because I ultimately agree with you. My point is simply that what apparently occurred is absurdly unlikely. Kinda like winning the lottery, and we all know no one has ever won the lottery right?

    But no, you children can't even handle that, not only must I agree with the rest of the class, I must apparently have some unshakable faith that teacher's word is law, that the very idea of any deception from them is literally ridiculous, and join in the making fun.

    I'm so tired of intellectual cronyism. Face it, you're just as ignorant of the events of that day on the surface of the moon as I am. Even if you were alive then, unless you were about 240 thousand miles away from where I am now, all you have to go on is someone or something's word. The difference between us is I don't feel the need to cleave to some authority figure's version of events to retain my self esteem. I'm aware that saying “I'm not sure” is actually a mark of intelligence and worthy of respect.

    Let's be clear, I'm not talking here to the scientists who have attempted to refute the conspiracy theorist's assertions one by one with hard evidence (clavius.org for the win). No one commenting on this thread is from that group. The only people on here are the faithful armchair labcoats that know as much about rocket science and history as I know about the joys of motherhood.

    I'm talking to a bunch of people who watched a discovery channel special this one time and think they've got it all figured out. People who have CLEARLY never had an unshakable belief and then tested it and found to their total shock that reality disagreed. Having never tasted such absolute refutation you people apparently don't even have a concept of the value of skepticism or the purpose of experimentation.

    No real scientist is responding to my claim, which amounts to an opinion, because they know it's futile. It would be like arguing which color is prettiest. At best the only rational response that can be made is an attempt to convince me personally that my criteria is wrong. And you haters haven't even asked me what my criteria is. Because you don't need to know, you have your state assigned faith and that's enough for you. Well awesome possum, some of us need more.

    The burden of proof is on the claimant.

    Fact: You people claim we landed two humans on the moon in 1969, walked them around, took pictures, and brought stuff back safely.

    Prove it.

    The only thing I have to prove is that I have an opinion.

    Your move.

  • innomen

    Post moved to reply… Not allowed to delete posts apparently. God the comment system on this blog is awful.

  • http://pentontechnologies.com scottpenton

    yea this was really interesting, thanks

  • moonwalker53

    Amazing, considering the technology of the time, that we did it! They landed on the moon (yes, I'm a “believer” in science) with less computer power than that which drives your car today!

  • kentimus

    That video was awesome. From the ice falling off the rocket to the burning restraints. Pretty cool 30 seconds extended to eight minutes.

  • voxxsound

    Innomen, I think you have spoken eloquently and have laid a valid argument. I agree that the things that have been discussed up to this point have all been a matter of opinion, and therefore since none of us were there (with the exception of 2 people…) the only thing we have to go on are reports and the words of others. To answer these questions with any definite precision would require an immense amount of work, expense, and would probably still result in those who are skeptical of the events of '69 to remain so. Not really worth it in my opinion. Before I go on, I will also state that I really don't know what happened. I just know that the evidence shown in support of the moon landing is strong enough for me to believe it.

    I do think that we landed on the moon with that first mission. Mostly because I believe that Occham's Razor can be applied in many situations like this (most conspiracy theories in general fall into this category). The simplest solution is often the correct one… From what you have said, it seems that you are applying the same principle in the other direction, and I can appreciate that. Travel to the moon is no small feat. It is full of challenges and extremely difficult equations. I admit that I am no “rocket scientist” (sorry, had to…) All that went into producing a vehicle to take us there as well as the physics of making it happen are beyond my comprehension at this point. The idea that our government would lie to us is also nearly a given. There is so much we dont know that it is easy to fill in the blanks with whatever we can conjure up. However, from the images, video, websites and interviews I have seen on this topic I am more likely to believe that the event actually took place. I dont know if you have ever seen the interview with Buzz where he was asked about the moon landing being faked. I am not saying that is the “smoking gun” by any means, but I think his reaction speaks volumes.

    I respect your rational questioning of the facts. I too feel that it is our job to question, and it is up to every person to form their own opinions based on logical reason and common sense. I just respectfully disagree with your position. I think the burden of proof now falls on the defendant (using your assignment). NASA claimed to have landed on the moon, and provided proof. If that proof was not good enough to convince people, then they are the ones who now needs to provide proof and sound reason as to why that is not the case. If someone just stood in front of a microphone and made the claim but showed nothing in way of proof, I would be much more likely to believe that it was all garbage. That did not happen in this case.

    While neither of us can truly prove what did or did not happen, I think the only thing we can really discuss at this point is the question of who really has to prove what. Logically, it seems to me that NASA is no longer shackled with the burden of proof. Even still, scientists have refuted nearly all of the claims of skeptics and given more proof to the validity of the original claim. At some point, you have to just let people believe what they will and move on.

    The human mind is meant to find patterns and analyze. Admittedly, sometimes this results in looking too hard for an answer that is actually quite simple.

    Cheers

  • Duke Gabber

    Looks like someone bought a new thesaurus…

  • innomen

    Thank you for your thoughtful and complete reply.

    You make an interesting point. I've never considered under what conditions the burden of proof might effectively shift, but now that I have the idea makes a lot of sense.

    While it may apply here I still have what my father used to call an “uh oh feeling” when it comes to an issue where people are constantly using arguments from authority.

    Also, the people on your side are fighting in effect for the right to rest on their laurels. Not that that has any bearing on the truth but it comes to bear emotionally when I realize that because the “other side” is winning we'll have no real motivation to go back to the moon. They encourage a “been there done that” attitude.

    The simple fact is we can't get back to the moon, and really that's the more important statement.

    People seem to forget. Correctly arguing a point isn't made easy by it simply being the truth. I see flawed logic all the time used to defend correct assertions, and when those assertions are made by people with flawed ethics I can't help but jump in.

    Basically what I'm saying is I just don't like the ethics or the social cost of the mainstream position in this case, I know well how authority stomps on dissent, and this causes every fiber of my being to want to defend the “moon landing cooks.” And it's easy to do, because like it explains on clavious, no legitimate historian pretends absolute knowledge or proof. Thus by default my “bad guys” are on shaky ground.

    Thanks for your time. Lets go back tomorrow, regardless of what we did yesterday.

  • Pingback: Ridiculous And Awesome Footage Of The Apollo 11 Launch | UpGRD me

  • Name

    LIES MYTHBUSTERS PROOVED IT

  • GladBags

    You can sift through endless amounts of data, but “truth” is usually left to your invested faith in said data. But “GOD” do I appreciate the development of recorded “media” to create such controversies.

    In regards to the debate as a whole within the web page, many work hard avoiding being ostracized for an alternative view, but few revel in it. In the end its perspective and faith in which we lean, which many of us can say is seriously distorted in most facets of life.

    Most of us are “settling” for what is available.

  • MagickWizard

    It makes me proud to think that my dad, Donald Eugene Davis, was a leadman in charge of a crew that built the F-1 engines shown in this video. I was 10 when he took me to the plant to see the engines up close. I remember touching one. They were three stories tall.

    Each engine put out 1.5 million pounds of thrust. 5 engines were 7.5 million pounds of thrust, at about 55,000 horsepower totalling 275,000 Hp.

    Each engine had more thrust than all three Space Shuttle Main Engines.

    To put this in perspective; I can remember how, whenever there was a launch, the news would tell us the richter reading in New York City. It was usually a low reading that was un-noticible by people, like in the ones and twos, but to think that a man made object could rattle the entire eastern seaboard is amazing.

    For more information on these amazing engines, (and verification of my statements) go to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-1_(rocket_engine)

  • nathan taylor

    the other comments about the flag waving are mostly not true. it appears to be waving because it is. there is no wind on the moon and the gravity there is 1/6th the gravity of that on earth therefore there is no force causing it to stop waving. it is simply the laws of physics.

    you ask why the flag was waving in the first place?
    also simple try plunging a light metal pole in the ground with out it shaking.
    the pole was light for the obvious reason that they did not need extra weight on the shuttle.

    the moon has 1/6th earths gravity, so it still has gravity, you ask why wouldn't this cause the cloth to fall down agent the pole? this is also simple the flag had metal wiring to keep it up.

    the ironic thing about the whole mess is that the flag actually fell down when they took off to return to the orbiting ship under the force from the rockets.
    they had to put up a new one during apolo 12. this one they were smart enuff to put a little ways away from the lander..