Man on the moon. Really?

[Tony Harrison 2]

Odd how these conspiracy theories - or eccentric whims - persist. It reminds me of the belief in Argentina among many otherwise intelligent people that Invincible was successfully bombed and/or hit by an Exocet on 30th May 1982, and the same refutation applies: even if it had occurred, it would have been impossible to cover up. I too was among those who watched the moon landing on TV - in the window of a TV rental shop on Armada Way in Plymouth. There was quite a crowd of people, all riveted. A couple of years later I met an ancient Welshman, the father of my girlfriend, who swore blind it was all a fake concocted in Hollywood. He was mad as a hatter.

[Nigel R]

"the average modern digital watch has more computing power that Apollo 13"

Not sure about watches. Commodore Vic 20, Sinclair ZX81 etc, were approximately the same power. That was 1980 or thereabouts. Apollo computers had an amazing amount of memory for the time - about 4k of RAM. The CPU ran at just 43kHz. It weighed 70 pounds.

I would guess your average mobile phone could easily have run mission control as well as the lander...

http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Apollo-11-The-computers-that-put-man-on-the-moon

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

These systems were specifically designed to run the software being used and their performance was reflected in this integration. I recall being told how modern computers need to use an astounding amount of their processing power to replicate the work done by the Colossus computer at Bletchley Park - although I don't have anything other than the museum staff's opinion to back this up...

The simplest PC program these days uses an incredible amount of memory - look at the average download size for even a mobile phone app! Not many of even the simplest of these come in below 1 MB - compare that with colour graphics rich Spectrum games running on 48 KB in the 70s...

Edited By Martin Harris on 17/07/2017 13:29:03

[Geoff S]

Posted by Martin Harris on 17/07/2017 13:15:03:

The simplest PC program these days uses an incredible amount of memory - look at the average download size for even a mobile phone app! Not many of even the simplest of these come in below 1 MB - compare that with colour graphics rich Spectrum games running on 48 KB in the 70s...

Edited By Martin Harris on 17/07/2017 13:29:03

That's certainly true. When we frst started playing with Motorola MC6800 8 bit processors the development systems had 32Kb of RAM and we used cassette tapes to save the data and programs (using Kansas City Standard NOT the awful TRS80 system) so quite reliable. In that 32k I would have an editor (Wordstar? IIRC), an assembler and an emulator so we had control of the hardware fpr testing. Later, when we started using 'C' the editor and compiler were easily accommodated on a 5.25" FDD. The processor ran with a clock speed of 1Mhz! We built all our own hardware and it was all fun.

Now? I wouldn't have clue and I doubt if I could write a line of C but I've been retired since 1995!

Geoff

[Nigel R]

1) There's a phenomenal amount of bloat in modern systems; programmers untrained / unused to restrictive environments coupled with massively capable devices = resource wasteful applications.

2) That's either very (30 years) outdated info, or "somewhat" talking up the capabilities of the Bletchley Park Colossus; wiki states it had 2400 valves, which ran around 2.5 million logic operations per second. That's about mid 80s general purpose PC CPU (e.g a 386) level. By mid 90s PCs where 100 times quicker. A current PC CPU can do about 300 billion, so I guess a "Colossus program" would use about 1/1000th of a percent of its capacity.

Wikis is a great source for early computing info, and also for this one see http://www.virtualcolossus.co.uk/

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

As it was put to me (@5 years ago) it was the fact that the hardware architecture was designed for the application that meant that a reasonable PC was needed to emulate it. But as you say, they may have been a little blinkered...

[Martin McIntosh]

I was expecting a response but not quite this much! You really need to be old enough to have watched it live as it supposedly happened.

Think about the huge Titan three stage rocket to get it into space, then the tiny lunar lander which had to get the thing down with retro rockets, no quadcopter style stabilisation available at that time and no practice possible. It then supposedly carried enough fuel to take off, get it into moon orbit then rendezvous with the command module.

I find the physics hard to believe even with 1/10th gravity.

There was no rocket blast that you would expect apart from a few sparks and no dust blown up.

Public interest waned after Apollo 12 so was it just coincidence that bad luck No. 13 came next?

And why did they simulate one of the Titan launches with a full crew and fuel? Were they about to blow the whole thing wide open and were eliminated?

They have photographed the failed Mars lander recently so why are there no pics of the much closer moon vehicles? Cos there are none.

[Peter Christy]

Martin: I learned long ago never to question the beliefs of others - however misguided they may appear to me! However, why stop at the moon landings? Why not go the whole hog? May I recommend this link for further reading:

**LINK**

--

Pete

[Trevor Crook]

Well, the rocket was a Saturn 5, not a Titan, and lunar gravity is about 1/6 Earth's, not 1/10th. Apart from those fairly basic bits of misinformation, I'm sure everything in conspiracy theories are true. Good night!

[buster prop]

Getting back to the OP, presumably the conspiracy theory is that the moon mission Saturn 5’s launched into low earth orbit for a few days instead of flying to the moon while the descent, landing, moonwalks and take-offs were being faked in a studio by actors. Then TV showed the capsules splashing down into the Pacific and the real astronauts emerging. Each Apollo launch was seen by millions of people live on TV and those who were at Cape Canaveral. Remember that the Russians were desperately trying to get to the moon first and their scientists knew that Saturn 5 was a viable moon rocket. Why would the Americans go to all the trouble and expense of building and launching several moon-capable Saturn 5’s and take the risk of being discovered faking moon landings? Easier to just go there, I've seen the Saturn 5 and watched the landing on TV, I'm convinced it happened.

[Fun Flyer]

Posted by Nigel R on 17/07/2017 11:25:03:

. Including assassinating JFK,

Its a well known fact that JFK survived the assassination attempt and went on to live out the rest of his life in secret with Marilyn Monroe.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[David Ovenden]

Martin, here's a thought. US president Donald Trump claims most news is "Fake News". He's also well in with the Russians according to some reports. I would think he would be just the person to investigate the moon landing conspiracy!

Edited By David Ovenden on 17/07/2017 22:44:44

[cymaz]

Of course we've been to the moon!

I watched a film about it with two astronauts called Wallace and Grommet. And it's made of cheese

[Trevor Crook]

There are pretty clear photos of several of the Apollo landing sites if you google them. But the looneys will say that if the landings are faked, it's easy to fake a photo. Not bashing my head against a brick wall any more, I'm out.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 17/07/2017 21:41:23:

I was expecting a response but not quite this much! You really need to be old enough to have watched it live as it supposedly happened.

Out of interest, why? I wasn't alive at the time. Am I not allowed an opinion? Does my degree in physics (including a research project on the moon's cratering, working with some of the UK's top lunar specialists) not give me an informed view?

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by David Ovenden on 17/07/2017 22:41:00:

Martin, here's a thought. US president Donald Trump claims most news is "Fake News". He's also well in with the Russians according to some reports. I would think he would be just the person to investigate the moon landing conspiracy!

What, and risk America's greatness?

[Nigel R]

"no quadcopter style stabilisation available at that time"

Here's some more faked things that couldn't have flown and therefore must be actors with strings holding them up, in action, in 1954:

[Nigel R]

" Does my degree in physics (including a research project on the moon's cratering, working with some of the UK's top lunar specialists) not give me an informed view?"

 

Don't be so damn sensible. You take your solid background of specialist subject knowledge and get out of here before some real evidence gets shown!

 

 

"The point I'm making is that dozens (perhaps hundreds) of engineers and scientists in many countries including Russia, Britain, USA and Japan"

Don't you realise they're all in on it, too?

 

"As it was put to me (@5 years ago) it was the fact that the hardware architecture was designed for the application that meant that a reasonable PC was needed to emulate it. But as you say, they may have been a little blinkered..."

Well, to be fair, you have to have something in the PC to do make the screen look like the real thing, and to show its output somehow, and each logic operation won't be a single PC instruction. So yes, you'd need a significantly more powerful PC in order to emulate it, although I'd guess that level was easily reached in about the mid 90s. 

The architecture on the colossus is more akin to the graphics processing units we have these days (a matrix of thousands of very simple processors operating in parallel) vs the general purpose CPUs (1 to 8 highly complex processors). So its not a direct comparison with a PC, hence the "more powerful PC" being needed.

 

Edited By Nigel R on 18/07/2017 08:43:08

Edited By Nigel R on 18/07/2017 08:50:17

[Phil 9]

The ​best conspiracy theory I heard was that a lot of ridiculous conspiracy theories are promoted by the CIA so when they do have something to hide it is written off as just another ridiculous conspiracy theory

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

A small request from "the management" please chaps!

We can understand that this topic provokes some strong views but we need to remember that, on here, everyone is entitled to an opionion and they are allowed to expect to at least be treated with some respect - no matter how much others may disagree wth that opinion.

So, let's knock some of the more insulting language in the head please - describing fellow forum members as "loonies" etc. is not acceptable I'm afraid! By all means express your views and arguments with vigour - but let's do so in a friendly or at least professional, and civilised manner eh?

BEB

[ted hughes]

NASA faked moon landing.OK NASA, we're on to you! Photographic proof:**LINK**

Edited By ted hughes on 18/07/2017 09:53:25

[Peter Christy]

Actually, I've suddenly realised that Martin may be on to something! I recently discovered this:

"Many people have claimed down the years, that the Apollo moon landings never
took place, and that the whole thing was secretly filmed in the Nevada desert...

Actually the filming took place in Accrington Stanley by two British inventors
in their garden shed.

NASA realised fairly early on in their endeavor that if they were unable to
bring the astronauts back, there would at the very least be a hanging.
To ensure plausible deniability, they approached two British inventors, Arthur
Gilmartin and Ernest Maypole, who were leaders in the field of miniaturisation.
They took full size everyday objects and reduced their mass by the clever use of
a meat grinder, 3 valves, an electro magnet and a variable focus Tesla coil
with lens. This technology is still leading the field in CPU manufacture but
due to it's highly classified nature, no one outside the military has ever seen
it in action.

Nasa shipped the lunar lander to the UK where Gilmartin and Maypole minaturised
it in their shed. Unfortunately the inventors found that reverse miniaturisation
of live objects, resulted in the unfortunate subject being fully restored except
in the head and tackle departments. This was known as "globular size of a pea
syndrome" whereby anything round remains in miniature (a solution has still not
been found to this unfortunate problem even to this day) As a solution was not
available, NASA decided not to send Armstrong or Aldrin for miniaturisation, as
an astronaut with a pea sized head would be noticed during the post landing
interviews. It was also felt that Mrs Armstrong & Aldrin would be a bit peeved
in the bedroom department. Instead they sent two unknown actors (it's widely
believed that Tom Cruise is the illegitimate child of one of those actors) who
were given their scripts to commit to memory prior to miniaturisation (they
would have been crushed by them if they were given to them after they were made
small)

Luckily, Maypole and Gilmartin were also involved in the filming of Captain
Scarlet, one of the most realistic SCI-FI programs on TV at the time.
NASA wanted the filming of the moon surface as realistic as possible and
suggested that the inventors used Swiss cheese. However Gilmartin and Maypole
chose to use the ash and clinkers from the grate of their coal fire, as they
didn't think anyone would notice and anyway, cheese was expensive and in short
supply at that time.

The scene was set and again Gilmartin and Maypole came up with an ingenious
solution to another problem, that of the delay in communications between NASA
and the moon. They used carrier pigeons to fly their messages to Mrs Entwistle
at number 34 who had a telephone. It was her job to phone a chap with an
American accent who relayed the original message over the airwaves. Gilmartin
and Maypole found that this worked out to be exactly the same amount of time for
a message sent by radio from the moon to earth.

The only real cockup was when Mrs Maypole turned up with a pot of tea for the
two inventors and opened the door of the shed, this was the infamous "flag
waving in the breeze" incident that NASA still has problems to explain even to
this day.

Obviously this is all highly classified, so please don't tell anyone or I'll get
in a bit of trouble with the MOD, CIA, NASA and Intel."

--

Pete

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Sounds like you might be on to the basis of a wonderful movie Pete - would you like me to act as your agent and approach a few Hollywood studios on your behalf?

Martin (not to be confused with the OP, I hasten to add!)

[David Ovenden]

Posted by ted hughes on 18/07/2017 09:52:33:

NASA faked moon landing.OK NASA, we're on to you! Photographic proof:**LINK**

Edited By ted hughes on 18/07/2017 09:53:25

Absolutely brilliant! Made my morning.