Jesus fez, let it go already... this is getting really stupid. What next are you going to pull out x-rays to show how much bigger your brain pan is than everyone elses? LM/LEM who gives a rats crack. This was supposed to be about busting the moon or rather anti-moon myths about the landing having happened or not. Lets get this back on track. What can we do from here on earth that would be easy enough for the common guy to pull off that could unequivocally prove that the men of nasa landed on the moon.

That's simple-watch the many hours of video and movie footage from the Lunar surface. There are many details in that footage that couldn't be reproduced in any environment except on the Moon no matter what the CTs say.

I watched it live, it was the 21st of July here in NZ. We got 4 hours of feed. You could see the moon as well, hehe. Crikey!! I think you guys got it fed from down here, and Aussie too, didnt you?
Never got a chance to congratulate the US on the landing. Then again how could I??
Mighty fine effort I reckon.
If us Kiwi's did it, you'd never stop hearing about it hehe
And by the way, Richard Pearse flew in 1898, before the Right Brothers, serious. You guys never did congratulated us about that.

quote:

What can we do from here on earth that would be easy enough for the common guy to pull off that could unequivocally prove that the men of nasa landed on the moon.

Wow, thats the question, Thankyou coranthule.
Even a dummy like me might be able to help if someone came up with the answer

quote:

What can we do from here on earth that would be easy enough for the common guy to pull off that could unequivocally prove that the men of nasa landed on the moon.

The question is still loaded.

Those who know don't need any more "unequivocal" proof.

The CT nuts will refute anything. Shine a laser? "The reflectors were left by unmanned probes." Moon physics? "Those can be faked here on earth." (No, they can't, but that's beside the point.)

You could fly them there and walk them over to the remains of Tranquility Base, or the others, and "all that stuff was sent up unmanned afterwards, to cover up... including the footprint-making machines."

CT theorists really are out of touch. You can't counter them with facts and reason. There's always another ludicrous claim to "support" their untenable stance. Groom Lake is no different. The CIA wanted a place away from prying eyes to work on the U2, and after the success with that the Air Force decided it was a good place to work on other black projects like the RS-71 and the F-117. Like with trying to "prove" the moon landings, even if you drove them out to Groom Lake and showed them around (which ain't gonna happen), they'll just say "well, you hid all the alien stuff before you brought me here!"

It's a no-win situation trying to convince them how erroneous their beliefs are.

Ooh, do I get extra credit for knowing why the RS-71 ended up being called the SR-71?

As far as conspiracy imbeciles go, I have a theory. I've posted this before, and it still holds true. Conspiracy idiots believe that no one went to the moon because that would require that men took it upon themselves to do something that was incredibly dangerous.

Not to save someone. Not to win a war (well, the cold war, but that's sort of a different story). Just because it needed to be done.

They risked all. Some paid with their lives (Apollo astronauts who died on the launch pad in the Apollo 1 fire and Apollo astronauts who died while flying to a factory, just to name a few).

They all knew the risks. To use the lines from "The Right Stuff", it took a special kind of man to volunteer for a suicide mission on national television.

Conspiracy nuts can't imagine doing anything above and beyond themselves. And therefore since they can't or won't do anything heroic, rather than admit that others are more courageous than they, they'd rather try and "prove" it couldn't have happened.

That way if others couldn't have done it, than they couldn't either. Much easier than admitting that they are just moral and physical cowards.

quote:

And by the way, Richard Pearse flew in 1898, before the Right Brothers, serious. You guys never did congratulated us about that.

Sure we did; we sent you a postcard.

You have to turn it upside down to read it, though.

Ooh ooh . I know too--Because LBJ messed up the announcement. I've been around that long too. What I feel is the myth here is that the CTs feel like they know the truth about the most well documented and widely observed event in world history. It takes a special kind of delusion to question what 100s of millions of people saw with their own eyes. There are literally warehouses full of evidence and historic data proving it happened; far more than such "mythical" events as the Civil War or WW-I.
Foor all but the most uneducated, the following video clip is more than adequate proof that Men were on the Moon.

LEM Liftoff

Sorry dfez... the "LBJ messed the speech up" is an urban legend (perpetuated by Tom Clancy, among others). Curtis LeMay preferred the SR designation over RS and really pushed for it and managed to get the speech altered. The actual typed speech LBJ read from was rendered as SR-71 in all cases. The RS-71 in 3 places of a few of the press-released released transcripts were typos during the transcription.

I had heard that story for years from a variety of sources from Aviation Leak to the History Channel. This is why details are important. Oh Well.

No problem, dfez... I know it's reported that way. Like I said, even Tom Clancy tells the "LBJ said it wrong so they changed it so he didn't look dumb" story. That's the way I'd always heard it.

I haven't done an inquiry myself, but supposedly the actual speeches and recordings, as kept in the archives, always had it as SR-71... the "he goofed" story apparently came from the RS-71 "typos" in some of the released transcripts.

But, I guess the possibility exists that the people claiming the archives support LBJ could always be wrong -- as I said, I haven't checked it out myself.

Previously I expressed confusion about why anyone would invest in moon CTs let alone believe - scott's theory sounds pretty good. Perhaps too their paranoia about the govt. is so deep that the mere govt. assertion is to them 'proof' of falsehood. Had the US govt denied landing on the moon, the CT-ists would use Bugs Bunny logic and insist they did so, and built Mall of the Moon besides. Maybe the moon-CTs look down on the Roswell CTs as 'soft'.

Shhhh golf, no one is supposed to know about the mall.

Fez, I was talking something a bit more tangible than watching videos. If thats all that was needed, CT's would have gone silent ages ago. Im talking more along the lines of a telescope that we could build or buy that would show what we need. I know thats not going to happen, at least on a "common" mans budget, but there has to be something.

SR. RS. Who gives a rats crack? It was a cool plane that allowed us to do some wicked crap in its day. I fully believe it should have been used as the model for extra-atmospheric flight craft. It was pretty darn close as it was, add some re-entry thrusters and some silica panels and viola you have a ground based space shuttle of sorts. Not sure what kind of payload it could carry but it might have been worth investing some research.

quote:

It was a cool plane that allowed us to do some wicked crap in its day. I fully believe it should have been used as the model for extra-atmospheric flight craft.

That was the original plan, with the X-series... but the 3 sacred specifications of "Man. Moon. Decade." threw the plans (and the logical approach) out the window.

quote:

Originally posted by coranthulle:
Fez, I was talking something a bit more tangible than watching videos. If thats all that was needed, CT's would have gone silent ages ago. Im talking more along the lines of a telescope that we could build or buy that would show what we need. I know thats not going to happen, at least on a "common" mans budget, but there has to be something.

It's just not possible to build a ground based telescope that has the resolution to image the landers on the Moon. You would need a primary something like 400 feet in diameter to get the angular resolution and that would have to be in a vacuum. Moving such a mirror and tracking the rapidly moving Moon would insanely difficult and keeping the mirror in figure as it changed positions would require a massively complex and expensive active optics system. This isn't even considering the thermal and seeing problems inherent in such an instrument. The larger you make the aperture of such a device, the worse the seeing problem becomes. It would be far cheaper to send a Rover to the Moon and land it and have it drive to the landing site and send back live video.
The reason that the CTs aren't convinced by the video is their fundamental lack of knowledge. That video clip contains incontrovertible evidence that it was shot on
the Moon to any educated viewer.
The RS-SR debate is important , if only for the amusing anecdote the question is based on. Maintaining an accurate historical record prevents arguments from CTs in the future who thrive on pointing out inconsistencies. The SR-71 wasn't even remotely close to being a Spaceplane. Going 2500 mph in the atmosphere is a far different thing than going 17,500 mph outside the atmosphere. It's aerodynamic surfaces were all wrong for an aircraft that would have to reenter at hypersonic speeds and it's engines and inlet probes couldn't survive entry heating let alone power the machine into orbit. It also didn't have anywhere near the fuel capacity to drive it's massive size up to orbital velocity. The X-15 that roof refers to did take some basic steps toward spaceflight and did, on 2 occasions, exceed the 100km altitude mark that's required for spaceflight records, but it too was far short of orbit. There was some talk of an uprated X-15B that would be launched on a booster rocket into orbit and fly back and land on a runway, but that was quickly folded into the DynaSoar X-20 Project. That project moved along for a while, but it was soon clear that the capsule approach would be faster and cheaper, so it was shelved. There are still designs floating around for an SSTO spacecraft; my personal favorite is the Black Horse concept.
It still seems like any such craft is a ways off unless someone like Burt Rutan comes up with a workable design in the private sector.

Well there are a few pilots that might disagree with you on the viability of space flight in the SR. But thats for another thread.

Yeah i kinda figure from the stuff i have been reading here that an optical telescope wouldnt be the way to "see" the moon landing sites. Maybe there is another way though. Radar would be one, laser spectrography perhaps? Might be pointless and far to expensive to send an imaging satellite there as well. It just occured to me however, that if we are planning on sending a manned mission to the moon soon that perhaps we could send an imaging probe first to see if things have changed much since the 70's. This would give NASA the perfect opportunity to slip in a flyby of the old sites.

Well, the SR-71 could never fly to or from space, so, whoever they are are just daydreaming. Besides, there is barely enough space inside the plane for the two crewmen to move their arms and legs in pressure suits. It would be a very uncomfortable machine to orbit the Earth aboard.
You're way too late with the new satellite idea. There are 2 new imaging satellites in orbit around the Moon now; The Japanese Kaguya and the Chinese Chang'e 1 launched last year. The Indians are planning on launching the Chandrayan-1 later this summer and NASA will launch the Biggie-The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter- in October. These spacecraft, between them will survey the entire Moon in almost all imaginable wavelengths and the LRO will be able to resolve details down to 1/2 meter resolution. So , if you are unwilling to believe the video evidence, remain calm and , within the next year, there should be lots of pictures available.

LRO

I didnt say they went into space with it. I just recall watching a program a long while back on the SR and the pilots featured on it talked about being on the edge of space and that a little more umphf and they could cross that barrier. Its not entirely inconceivable with as i said a few design changes to make it possible for a low orbit. Add in a little more thrust from some solid fuel rockets and viola. It was in my opinion a missed opportunity, but as i said before that is niether here nor there.

As to the new sats, thats more like it. I thought i remembered something about NASA wanting to get a new one up there but never heard about it getting the greenlight. Thats nice to know, maybe now we can get the nail in the coffin evidence we need.
Somehow i imagine the CTs will say that we just put the remnants up there within the last couple of years though to cover it all up.

quote:

Originally posted by coranthulle:
I didnt say they went into space with it. I just recall watching a program a long while back on the SR and the pilots featured on it talked about being on the edge of space and that a little more umphf and they could cross that barrier. Its not entirely inconceivable with as i said a few design changes to make it possible for a low orbit. Add in a little more thrust from some solid fuel rockets and viola. It was in my opinion a missed opportunity, but as i said before that is niether here nor there.

As to the new sats, thats more like it. I thought i remembered something about NASA wanting to get a new one up there but never heard about it getting the greenlight. Thats nice to know, maybe now we can get the nail in the coffin evidence we need.
Somehow i imagine the CTs will say that we just put the remnants up there within the last couple of years though to cover it all up.

Saying that the SR-71 operated at the edge of space is much more of a metaphor than a statement of fact. The plane could neve have reached orbit no matter how you "tweaked" it. Taking the empty weight of about 70,000 lbs and adding a very optimistic weight of 30,000 lbs for the added equipment needed for orbital flight like an RCS system, deorbit engines, additional fuel, life support, and a thermal protection system you get a orbiting vehicle that weighs around 100,000 lbs. Using a simplified example of the Rocket Equations for SSTO, you end up with a vehicle that would need to leave the ground with 670,000 lbs of fuel on board. Leaving aside the fact that the engines were not capable of going very much faster than they already did and that the plane had a hard time getting off the ground with a mere 16,000 lbs of fuel on board, there is no conceivable way the plane could lift that much fuel. The SR-71 operated at the extreme end of it's flight envelope; it was very fragile and barely controllable at the top end. If you raised the nose more than 8 degrees, the plane would stall and go into an unrecoverable spin. If you yawed the plane just a little too much or didn't have the inlet spikes adjusted just right, an engine would Unstart resulting in severe yaw and possible loss of control. This was a frequent occurrence and happened on about 1/3 of operational flights. I've also read accounts of pilots describing how they could feel the airframe bending during even light turbulence. The wings, chines, nose , leading edges, and tails were the complete opposite of what you need for aerodynamics of a reentry vehicle. Read up on the Blunt Body Effect. The only thing the SR-71 had that could be adapted for spaceflight was the pressure suit design and it was. Otherwise it is inconceivable, to use your word, and anybody that flew one would know that.

Damn Fez, you just dont give up do you? This isnt about the SR. If you want to discuss it further, and i asure you I dont, please go somewhere else with another thread. I belive the transportaion forum would be adequate.

I was simply stating a feeling not a fact. My feeling stands because its mine. I also didnt say it would be the current config, and with some tweeking, this changing it from its current to a completely differnt config, it could be the spring board to another platform.

There is no need to pick it apart to show how smart you are and how dumb the rest of us common folk are. We get it already, you are an old fart that has done way too much crap for one being in this world in one lifetime gaining a multitude of experiences and knowledge that rival any of our paltry existances. We sir bow to you and your greatness. So please stop nitpicking every statement that goes contrary to your sensibilities.