Why is it some people cling to the belief that we didn't actually land on the moon, but staged it out in the desert somewhere?

This seriously has me puzzled. I mean...yah, ok, it was done without computer aid, designed on slide rules, etc. So was the YB49, which is a line-for-line, angle-for-angle, duplicate of the B2...and the B2 was arrived at totally by coincidence. It wasn't until after it was on the boards that someone got the idea to compare it to Northrop's original design, and had a "holy shit" moment.  Not to mention Kelly's Skunkworks and their brilliant machines, such as the SR-71, and other things that probably never left Top Secret.

What is it that makes the tinfoil beanie crowd insist that it's all bullshit, it's some massive government conspiracy involving thousands of people, etc?

Because they weren't invited.

There's a certain element of our society that really enjoys a government conspiracy theory no matter how silly it is.

We have quite a few of them as members.

They just can't handle the truth.  Like with 9/11 or JFK's assasination, the reality was just so extraordinary the simplest, plainest explanation just couldn't be the real story to them.

Occam's Razor:  Learn it, live it, love it.  Leave the conspiracies to the whack-jobs.

Quoted: This seriously has me puzzled. I mean...yah, ok, it was done without computer aid, designed on slide rules, etc. So was the YB49, which is a line-for-line, angle-for-angle, duplicate of the B2...and the B2 was arrived at totally by coincidence. It wasn't until after it was on the boards that someone got the idea to compare it to Northrop's original design, and had a "holy shit" moment.

WTF?!?!?

There's almost no truth to any of that, except that Northrop built the YB-49, and there is an airplane called the B-2.

I'll post more in a minute, but if that's part of your argument to sway moon-hoax whackos, we're in trouble.

ETA:
Northrop YB-49:



Northrop B-2:

Quoted: Occam's Razor:  Learn it, live it, love it.  Leave the conspiracies to the whack-jobs.

YEp, that was my whole thing...

And Dzl, yes, wing angles and such are identical.

The tailing edges are different, and obviously the control system is different...but Jack Northrop's Flying Wing was the same dimensions as the B2 as well as having the same rake.

ETA: Let me find the docs on a site that doesn't mention antigravity as well

(And if I'm wrong, well, it's a good thing I got a big mouth..has to be for my foot to fit in it )

"What is it that makes people think the lunar landings didn't happen?"

Stupidity & Paranoia.

How about the fact that a growing number of people didn't live in that era,
and there are more and more reputable scientists who have reasonable
evidence that suggests the possibility it was a hoax.

Quoted: How about the fact that a growing number of people didn't live in that era, and there are more and more reputable scientists who have reasonable evidence that suggests the possibility it was a hoax.

There are probably fewer hoax peddlers today. And name ONE reputable scientist who will assert that the moon landings were a hoax. Provide ample suporting sources, please.

Some people think the moon landings didn't happen because they are stupid.  

Quoted: So was the YB49, which is a line-for-line, angle-for-angle, duplicate of the B2...and the B2 was arrived at totally by coincidence.

No.   The wingspan is about the only thing really identical. Well, that and they're flying wings made by Northrop. Hell just from the pic you can tell that the trailing edge design is different, the wingtip design is different.

The only thing really the same is the wingspan, and Jack Northrop just happened to get the optimal wingspan right the first time because he was just that goddamn good.

The B-2 by and large is an extension of the design and flight lessons learned in the YB-49 project and others. Basically, the B-2 is the YB-49's son.

Quoted: How about the fact that a growing number of people didn't live in that era, and there are more and more reputable scientists who have reasonable evidence that suggests the possibility it was a hoax.

Reasonable evidence?  You  mean the "C" rock. You have got to be shitting me.  



A hair that was caught in the negative when they were making prints of that picture.  That hair isnt there in the original.

No stars in the sky?  The astronauts went to the moon to take pictures of the moon, not the stars.  The moon is lit up by the sun in those pics, so they took pictures with fim that was set for daylight surroundings.  The landscape was exposed correctly, but the sky turns out black.

Watch episode 303 of Penn & Tellers Bullshit.  A helluva lot more reputable source than anyone who thinks that the moon landing was a hoax.

Anyone who believes any of the bullshit about the moon landing being a hoax, seriously has their head so far up their ass that they could wear themselves as a hat.

IIRC, the original B2 flying wing design was influenced by a German plane at the end of WWII.

www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/horten.html

Quoted: www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/akiraprise/planes.jpg

Is that from one of my links?

Quoted: How about the fact that a growing number of people didn't live in that era, and there are more and more reputable scientists who have reasonable evidence that suggests the possibility it was a hoax.

ok, let's weigh the "reputable scientists" who think we did land on the moon against those who think we didn't.

and then we can weight "reasonable evidence" that we did land on the moon against the "reasonable evidence" that we did not land on the moon.

care to guess what the outcome would be?

Yep, the same people that think the moon landings were a hoax also know that:

1. There's really a cure for cancer, but the medical profession won't inform the public
   because they make more money with the current treatments.

2. There's this car that gets 80mpg in a barn in Michigan. The oil companys bought the
   patent and are sitting on it to keep the cost of oil high.

3. Elvis is alive, professional wrestling is real, etc. etc.

We landed on the moon?

Quoted: IIRC, the original B2 flying wing design was influenced by a German plane at the end of WWII. www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/horten.html

Yeah ...

Except that Jack Northrop was already working on the N-9M during the war. Horton and Klipsch both had some decent flying wing testbeds, but Northrop's work was independent.

You will notice many outwardly-common characteristics to all flying wing designs, inasmuch as there is usually a fairly narrow set of elegant solutions to the design problem.

They have a mental affliction known as asshole.

I remember some one telling me one time that one of the flags they had was blowing around .He said that there is no wind on the suface of the moon and never could be .I don't know if thats true

The same sort of people seriously believe the Earth is only 8000 years old.

Quoted: I remember some one telling me one time that one of the flags they had was blowing around .He said that there is no wind on the suface of the moon and never could be .I don't know if thats true

Everyime you see the flag waving you see the astronauts holding on to the pole, and they are moving the flag back and forth.  It is moving because of inertia, not because of air or wind.

Quoted: Quoted: How about the fact that a growing number of people didn't live in that era, and there are more and more reputable scientists who have reasonable evidence that suggests the possibility it was a hoax. Such as?

[Hippy]Look at the flag! THE FLAG! It's WAIVING! There must be air making it stand like that and if there is no air on the moon, so it was in a soundstage!!!! OMFGWTFBBQHOLYSHIT! [/Hippy]

[Scientist]There's a fucking POLE holding it at the angle, dipshit![/Scientist]

[Hippy] Don't opress me and my openness to ideas! [/Hippy]

Quoted: The same sort of people seriously believe the Earth is only 8000 years old.

There ya go.  Also known as "Idiots"

Quoted: I remember some one telling me one time that one of the flags they had was blowing around .He said that there is no wind on the suface of the moon and never could be .I don't know if thats true

What part? That some idiot told you the flags were blowing on the moon? That could be true.

That the flags were observed to be fluttering? That is most definitely not true. The flags were seen waving after the astronauts placed the flags into the surface of the moon because, even though the flags and masts had very little mass, they did have mass, and thus inertia. Since there was no air to cause dreag on the flags, they would "wave" untiol the energy was dissipated into the mast and moon surface.

That there is no wind on the surface of the moon? That is DEFINITELY true.

They are Idjits.

Quoted: Quoted: I remember some one telling me one time that one of the flags they had was blowing around .He said that there is no wind on the suface of the moon and never could be .I don't know if thats true What part? That some idiot told you the flags were blowing on the moon? That could be true. That the flags were observed to be fluttering? That is most definitely not true. The flags were seen waving after the astronauts placed the flags into the surface of the moon because, even though the flags and masts had very little mass, they did have mass, and thus inertia. Since there was no air to cause dreag on the flags, they would "wave" untiol the energy was dissipated into the mast and moon surface. That there is no wind on the surface of the moon? That is DEFINITELY true.

The part about the idiot

Not saying we didn't go.  But,why haven't we been back?    We've spent the last 25 years orbiting the earth in an obsolete shuttle and still think it's a big deal.  WE have a hard time doing that!

  I do get luagh out of those who talk about a mars mission.

Quoted: Not saying we didn't go.  But,why haven't we been back?    We've spent the last 25 years orbiting the earth in an obsolete shuttle and still think it's a big deal.     I do get luagh out of those who talk about a mars mission.

Because that's all the program was funded for.kind of like why North American Aviation didn't build more P-51 Mustangs ... the contract was up.

Quoted: Not saying we didn't go.  But,why haven't we been back?    We've spent the last 25 years orbiting the earth in an obsolete shuttle and still think it's a big deal.     I do get luagh out of those who talk about a mars mission.

why go back?  

it was about getting there first, which we did.

Quoted: Not saying we didn't go.  But,why haven't we been back?    We've spent the last 25 years orbiting the earth in an obsolete shuttle and still think it's a big deal.  WE have a hard time doing that!   I do get luagh out of those who talk about a mars mission.

Because the funding got cut, NASA manned spaceflight got infected with a bunch of goddamn pansey bean counters, and all the good people apparently got suppressed, infected with the corp attitude, went to private industry, or retired.

I forget which Sci-Fi author (might have been Heinlein) said that the Nation should be goddamn ashamed that we went to the moon in under 10 years, and then spent the next quarter century jerking off in low earth orbit.

Quoted: Not saying we didn't go.  But,why haven't we been back?    We've spent the last 25 years orbiting the earth in an obsolete shuttle and still think it's a big deal.  WE have a hard time doing that!

"They" will tell you its because the aliens  who secretly run our world don't WANT us in space to compete with them.

Quoted: Some people think the moon landings didn't happen because they are stupid.   Quoted: So was the YB49, which is a line-for-line, angle-for-angle, duplicate of the B2...and the B2 was arrived at totally by coincidence. No.   The wingspan is about the only thing really identical. Well, that and they're flying wings made by Northrop. Hell just from the pic you can tell that the trailing edge design is different, the wingtip design is different. The only thing really the same is the wingspan, and Jack Northrop just happened to get the optimal wingspan right the first time because he was just that goddamn good. The B-2 by and large is an extension of the design and flight lessons learned in the YB-49 project and others. Basically, the B-2 is the YB-49's son.

Accepted...foot inserted into mouth...my own more indepth digging has found the same. Wingspan same, angles not. Ah well. That's what I get for believing the History Channel

{Dale} That's what THEY want you to think{Dale}


Wait, who is "they" and what side are "they" on?



Why isn't there a tin foil hat smiliehinking.gif

Quoted: {Dale} That's what THEY want you to think{Dale} Wait, who is "they" and what side are "they" on? Why isn't there a tin foil hat smilie

Quoted: {Dale} That's what THEY want you to think{Dale} Wait, who is "they" and what side are "they" on? Why isn't there a tin foil hat smilie

Dale?



*snicker*...caught one

(Inside joke)

There's no tin-foil smiley because...well....uhh.....it's an alien conspiracy. That's all I'll say on the subject.

Quoted: How about the fact that a growing number of people didn't live in that era, and there are more and more reputable scientists who have reasonable evidence that suggests the possibility it was a hoax.

THAT is just about the silliest statement I've heard in a long time.

Please cite some of these "reputable scientists".  I'd like to see if any are former colleagues of mine!

Please provide some of this "reasonable evidence" of which you speak.  

Did you not learn anything in HS?  Have you learned NO history at all?  Truly, there is more to life than MTV and "Survivor"!  Do you have any idea how many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy?

My wife used to work with Dr. Buzz Aldrin's daughter.  I can assure you that his family remains convinced that he was the second human being to set foot on the Moon.

Sheesh...

Quoted: Quoted: How about the fact that a growing number of people didn't live in that era, and there are more and more reputable scientists who have reasonable evidence that suggests the possibility it was a hoax. THAT is just about the silliest statement I've heard in a long time. Please cite some of these "reputable scientists".  I'd like to see if any are former colleagues of mine! Please provide some of this "reasonable evidence" of which you speak.   Did you not learn anything in HS?  Have you learned NO history at all?  Truly, there is more to life than MTV and "Survivor"!  Do you have any idea how many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy? My wife used to work with Dr. Buzz Aldrin's daughter.  I can assure you that his family remains convinced that he was the second human being to set foot on the Moon. Sheesh...

One of the things I heard bandied about was the photos taken; the crosshairs were always on, the subject was always in the frame, etc...llike, shit!

One vacation, my father, for reasons I will never understand, entrusted me with his Luftwaffe-marked Leica; no rangefinder or lightmeter, etc. It was all breaking out the light meter, and mental distance judging. Color film, not B&W. (Thankfully; B&W is damn hard to get right, lighting-wise)

I took better photos that vacation than he did, with his bells-and-whistles loaded Nikon.

I took maybe 3 rolls of practice before we left. I wasn't more than 10 years old.

If I can nail an iguana on a tree in perfect detail, lighting, etc at 3 meters away (the lens was graduated in meters)...I'm sure a highly-trained professional can nail a photo on the moon with the same technology.

Quoted: My wife used to work with Dr. Buzz Aldrin's daughter.  I can assure you that his family remains convinced that he was the second human being to set foot on the Moon. Sheesh...

In "Return to Earth," Engineer/Pilot/Soldier/Astronaut/Educator/American Aldrin makes a compelling case that indeed he was the first man to land on the moon, because the pad on his side of the LM touched first!

Aldrin was, and still is IMHO, an absolute genius whose contribution to astronautics is severly overlooked. He practically invented the whole realm of orbital rendezvous mechanics for his doctoral dissertation! I mean, he derived all of the math from first principles! A truly great American mind!!! Plus, he's still got a mean right hook!

Quoted: YB49 and the B2 are very different aircraft.  They both just happen to be flying wings with the same wingspan.  The rest of the dimensions are different.

Actually, in some ways they are very much alike.  When ordered by Air Force Secretary Symington to destroy all of the YB-49s and the tooling and jigs after the end of the B-36/B-49 fly-off and contract award, John Northrop did so immediately in order to save his company.  Symington told him he'd never get another USAF contract and those then current would be cancelled, resulting in the demise of Northrop Aviation if Mr. Northrop failed to comply.

As we all know, the B-36 went into production even though it later became somewhat of an operational turkey, the USS United States, the first "supercarrier" was cancelled, leading to the "Revolt of the Admirals" and Northrop's company evolved into what is now one of the largest defense contractor in the world.

Now...how are they the same?  During flight testing of the YB-49, they learned that it was a very difficult radar target.  The nominal RCS was several dBm down from what was expected from a regular airplane of that size.

What killed the YB-49 was it's somewhat twitchy flight control system.  The Air Force had a requirement for its bombers to fly rock steady from the IP to over the target for precision bombing...although as a nuclear bomber, I really fail to see the need...but that's another story.  The B-36 was steady...and the YB-49 was not.  They didn't have the precision, computer controlled flight control systems we have now to keep the tailless B-2 Spirit on course.  Northrop's people had just about perfected an analog system to try when the program got the ax.  The YB-49 had to be handled with great skill or it would kill the crew.  It could be flipped out of controlled flight too easily.

Just before B-2 initial rate production began, during the last design phases, a very old and ailing John Northrop was brought back to the HQ and "read in" to a black program for what was likely the last time.  He was then wheeled into a conference room to meet with the then CEO and other senior staff of the company that kept his name.  On the table was a scale model of the B-2.  As the Northrop execs began to tell him about the new bomber, the Old Man began to weep.

Symington was long dead...and John Northop, one of the world's greatest aviation pioneers had finally seen his dream come true.

A true story.

Because Hollyweird needs something to do?



CW

Quoted: Quoted: My wife used to work with Dr. Buzz Aldrin's daughter.  I can assure you that his family remains convinced that he was the second human being to set foot on the Moon. Sheesh... In "Return to Earth," Engineer/Pilot/Soldier/Astronaut/Educator/American Aldrin makes a compelling case that indeed he was the first man to land on the moon, because the pad on his side of the LM touched first! Aldrin was, and still is IMHO, an absolute genius whose contribution to astronautics is severly overlooked. He practically invented the whole realm of orbital rendezvous mechanics for his doctoral dissertation! I mean, he derived all of the math from first principles! A truly great American mind!!! Plus, he's still got a mean right hook!

I have heard the same.  IIRC, he was VERY instrumental in the success of Gemini.  Given his many accomplishments and his purported soaring ego, I can understand why Buzz was not happy to play second fiddle to Armstrong.

I also heard from his daughter at a pool party that Dad was somewhat of a PITA too!

Quoted: One of the things I heard bandied about was the photos taken; the crosshairs were always on, the subject was always in the frame, etc...llike, shit!

Besides what you said, there's also the fact that the well publicized photos are basically the publicity stills that NASA released. The nuts always point to the "good stuff". There's lots and lots of other shots that you can find, that aren't always great, that NASA just never stuck into a press release.

Quoted: One of the things I heard bandied about was the photos taken; the crosshairs were always on, the subject was always in the frame, etc...llike, shit!

Actually, if you look at the uncropped images, they're not that great. And NASA only selects the best ones for publication.

Guess they weren't too carefull about cropping the MER images...



CW

Quoted: I have heard the same.  IIRC, he was VERY instrumental in the success of Gemini.  Given his many accomplishments and his purported soaring ego, I can understand why Buzz was not happy to play second fiddle to Armstrong. I also heard from his daughter at a pool party that Dad was somewhat of a PITA too!

Re: Gemini - When Ed White nearly croaked on his spacewalk because he was almost too exhausted to get back into the capsule, Aldrin was thinking that there had to be a better way. An accomplished diver, he applied what he knew about neutral bouyancy to help NASA develop the neutral bouyancy training pool. In that pool, Aldrin developed the low-energy methods of moving and working in space. By the time he made his own EVA on Gemini, he was able to work outside for hours without exhaustion.

You should try to find "Return to Earth." It's an exceptionally candid autobiography that details his childhood, his relationship with his demanding father, his keen interest in a life with God, his military and academic careers and of course his trip to the moon. More gripping, though, is his unabashed account of his lifelong battle with depression and alcoholism. As highly as I revere him, I am now able to see that, indeed, he's just a man. However, rather than use that to denigrate him in any way, I am inspired that a man haunted by so many demons can accomplish, and continue to accomplish, such incredible feats. If he can do it, why can't I?

Quoted: Quoted: I have heard the same.  IIRC, he was VERY instrumental in the success of Gemini.  Given his many accomplishments and his purported soaring ego, I can understand why Buzz was not happy to play second fiddle to Armstrong. I also heard from his daughter at a pool party that Dad was somewhat of a PITA too! Re: Gemini - When Ed White nearly croaked on his spacewalk because he was almost too exhausted to get back into the capsule, Aldrin was thinking that there had to be a better way. An accomplished diver, he applied what he knew about neutral bouyancy to help NASA develop the neutral bouyancy training pool. In that pool, Aldrin developed the low-energy methods of moving and working in space. By the time he made his own EVA on Gemini, he was able to work outside for hours without exhaustion. You should try to find "Return to Earth." It's an exceptionally candid autobiography that details his childhood, his relationship with his demanding father, his keen interest in a life with God, his military and academic careers and of course his trip to the moon. More gripping, though, is his unabashed account of his lifelong battle with depression and alcoholism. As highly as I revere him, I am now able to see that, indeed, he's just a man. However, rather than use that to denigrate him in any way, I am inspired that a man haunted by so many demons can accomplish, and continue to accomplish, such incredible feats. If he can do it, why can't I?

Because you spend too much time posting on ARFCOM.

CW