This is an older article but I wanted to get everyone's opinions on it. It has 10 very convincing things supporting the idea that we never went to the moon. I typically am not one for conspiracy theorists, but one has to admit that something doens't add up here. Thoughts?

10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax - Listverse (http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/)

The waving flag, light/shadows, no crater from the landing, and radiation belt are pretty easy to explain. The weird objects are just weird. I think the top comment on that article does a pretty good job of explaining those questions.

Stanley Kubrick filmed the landing video hoax. Talked to a man who talked to Dr Van Allen and Dr VA said it was a total sham to bilk taxpayers out of billions and give the American people a sense of intellectual superiority among many other reasons.

Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon landing Hoax - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7pzg9xpAOE)

Even better watch "The Shining Code" on youtube

The Shining Code (complete film) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2g-qvloXns)

There are better ones out there ...just dont have time to look them up now.

The waving flag, light/shadows, no crater from the landing, and radiation belt are pretty easy to explain. The weird objects are just weird. I think the top comment on that article does a pretty good job of explaining those questions.I agree!

Here is what the comment said:


-10: The flag was fastened to a Г-shaped rod so that it did not hang down. The flag only seemed to flutter when the astronauts were moving it into position. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. The flag was rippled because it had been folded during storage—the ripples could be mistaken for movement in a still photo. Videos show that when the astronauts let go of the flagpole it vibrates briefly but then remains still

-9: No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Moon lander was no longer quickly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the lander's own weight, which was lessened by the Moon's gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants

-8: Shadows on the Moon are complicated by reflected light, uneven ground, wide-angle lens distortion, and lunar dust. There are several light sources: the Sun, sunlight reflected from the Earth, sunlight reflected from the Moon's surface, and sunlight reflected from the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many directions, including into shadows. Shadows falling into craters and hills may appear longer, shorter and distorted. Furthermore, shadows display the properties of vanishing point perspective, leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.

-7: The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays. At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.

-6: the stupidest argument ever.

-5: i don't see anything. maybe a spider make a web inside your monitor.

-4: All manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the Moon's surface. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Likewise, cameras were set for daylight exposure and could not detect the stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background to black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed so that the foreground light doesn't wash-out the image. A demonstration of this effect is . The effect is similar to not being able to see stars from a brightly lit car park at night—the stars only become visible when the lights are turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon.

-3: The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections and do not appear in the original film from the camera. It has been suggested that the "C" is a coiled hair.

-2: This only appears in copied and scanned photos, not the originals. It is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it. Furthermore, there are many photos where the middle of the crosshair is "washed-out" but the rest is intact. In some photos of the American flag, parts of one crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair are faded or invisible on the white stripes. There would have been no reason to "paste" white stripes onto the flag.

-1:Backgrounds were not identical, just similar. What appear as nearby hills in some photos are actually mountains many miles away. On Earth, objects that are further away will appear fainter and less detailed. On the Moon, there is no atmosphere or haze to obscure faraway objects, thus they appear clearer and nearer. Furthermore, there are very few objects (such as trees) to help judge distance.

Why don't we have settlements there today if in fact we landed there. It was hoax IMO

Why isn't Ed Shadid asking these questions?

Don't worry bchris I've got enough tinfoil for you also.

If it is a hoax then Google is in on it too.

Google Moon (http://www.google.com/moon/)

I'm always amazed when I'm reminded that people believe these hoax theories.

Yeah, I guess I'm just another member of the gullible herd (whatever).

Why don't we have settlements there today if in fact we landed there. It was hoax IMO

Because.....
Big difference in landing on the moon as opposed to colonizing/living there for months/yrs at a time.

I think the bigger mystery is how come we never went back. That always baffles me.

If it was a hoax then I gotta think Russia, China or some geek in a research lab would have exposed it by now.

We landed 6 manned missions on the moon and attempted more...

The real and only reason that any man ever went in the first place was to prove to the world that the American way was superior during the Cold War. Once we clearly established our supremacy in this area, there was no reason for men to go back and the general public lost interest and thus NASA lost funding.

Having people on any mission is generally a massive handicap. Machines can do just as good a job (as has been proven with the Mars missions) and you don't have to allow for oxygen and food, and having careful landings and getting them back safely.

We landed 6 manned missions on the moon and attempted more...

The real and only reason that any man ever went in the first place was to prove to the world that the American way was superior during the Cold War. Once we clearly established our supremacy in this area, there was no reason for men to go back and the general public lost interest and thus NASA lost funding.

Having people on any mission is generally a massive handicap. Machines can do just as good a job (as has been proven with the Mars missions) and you don't have to allow for oxygen and food, and having careful landings and getting them back safely.

Really? That seems like a silly reason and awfully shortsighted. When it comes to exploration historically mankind hasn't been much a 'been there done that why do it again' type. I guess you had to be of the times for the rationale of sticking it to the commies to make sense. Must have been exciting all the same.

Here is an interesting perspective from a filmmaker on why it could not have been faked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

The US and other countries have sent unmanned crafts to the moon...

But what is left to accomplish? It's a lifeless chunk of rock and dust. How many moon rocks and soil samples do we need?

I'm glad we are concentrating our now limited resources on Mars and other bodies. The Mars stuff was absolutely amazing and there is so much more to explore.

So is Wyoming but people still go there.

Really? That seems like a silly reason and awfully shortsighted. When it comes to exploration historically mankind hasn't been much a 'been there done that why do it again' type. I guess you had to be of the times for the rationale of sticking it to the commies to make sense. Must have been exciting all the same.

Believe me, it wasn't silly back in the 60's!

That's why after the Soviets put the first satellite then the first man into space, then president Kennedy pledged "By the end of this decade we will land a man on the moon and return him home safely".

I'm sure many are too young to understand the significance of this, but Kennedy understood it and so did the public at the time. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were not so much battling each other, they were trying to get other countries to come over to their philosophy and fall within their sphere of influence. When the Soviets persuaded Cuba into communism, it created the most perilous situation quite possibly in the history of mankind: The very real possibility of nuclear war.

A lot of countries were struggling and communism appeared at that time to be a solid choice to lead them out of the mire. And when the Soviets seemed to be winning the technology war, it reinforced the notion that their way was the right path for the future.


If anyone is interested and doesn't mind a big undertaking, I highly recommend Space by James Michener. Like all his books, he weaves fictional characters into historical events and it remains my favorite book. Was wildly entertaining but I learned a ton. (I was still very young in the 60's so I only have vague recall of the history involved).

Here is an interesting perspective from a filmmaker on why it could not have been faked


That was very interesting!


Thanks for posting it.

I love conspiracy theories and codes.
They imply imagination and creativity.
The ending of the filmed version of The Shining was far better than the way the "original" writer ended it.

So is Wyoming but people still go there.

One of the main reasons people go to Wyoming is to see Devil's Tower.
You know . . . Where them aliens landed.
I expect it won't be long before visitors report sightings of Fred Phelps hovering in the vicinity.

I figure I'll believe the moon landings were a hoax about the same time I believe enjoying good BBQ is a bad idea.

Really? That seems like a silly reason and awfully shortsighted. When it comes to exploration historically mankind hasn't been much a 'been there done that why do it again' type. I guess you had to be of the times for the rationale of sticking it to the commies to make sense. Must have been exciting all the same.

Going to the moon isn't like most "historical exploration". There's nothing to gain by going back. There's nothing of value there for mankind to exploit, and it costs an unimaginable amount of money to continue to put humans on the surface. There's more to gain by exploring Antarctica than by exploring the moon.

Stanley Kubrick filmed the landing video hoax. Talked to a man who talked to Dr Van Allen and Dr VA said it was a total sham to bilk taxpayers out of billions and give the American people a sense of intellectual superiority among many other reasons.

Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon landing Hoax - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7pzg9xpAOE)

Even better watch "The Shining Code" on youtube

The Shining Code (complete film) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2g-qvloXns)

There are better ones out there ...just dont have time to look them up now.

Utter asininity in all respects.

We landed 6 manned missions on the moon and attempted more...

The real and only reason that any man ever went in the first place was to prove to the world that the American way was superior during the Cold War. Once we clearly established our supremacy in this area, there was no reason for men to go back and the general public lost interest and thus NASA lost funding.

Having people on any mission is generally a massive handicap. Machines can do just as good a job (as has been proven with the Mars missions) and you don't have to allow for oxygen and food, and having careful landings and getting them back safely.

The greatest tragedy of the loss of funding for the last moon missions was that the only thing really "cut" was the operations budgets. The real expensive stuff - the rockets - were already built. One is on display (on its side, in sections) at the Huntsville Space Center (if I'm correct), and the other was cannibalized for the politically valuable but scientifically useless Apollo-Soyuz joint "mission"

Utter asininity in all respects.

Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood by their culture , let alone by the masses. Plato ~ 400 BC

Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood by their culture , let alone by the masses. Plato ~ 400 BC

To this day, if you have a strong enough laser you can bounce it off mirrors set up on the surface of the moon by Apollo missions 11, 14 and 15(set up for lunar laser ranging). You can also use a strong telescope and see the items left by the missions. If you believe the Apollo landings are a hoax and we have not touched down on the moon, you are not very intelligent. New NASA pics show Apollo astronauts' footpaths on the moon (http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-apollo-landing-sites-photos/19756/)

Here is an interesting perspective from a filmmaker on why it could not have been faked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

Great stuff.

Some of the issues about reflectivity, shadows, and lighting were addressed comparably in a Mythbusters episode a few years ago dedicated to all the moonbeam conspiracy theories about how it was all faked. Interestingly enough, they took a similar approach in that trying to explain how the moonbeam goofball tinhat theories could possibly all be right required monumental leaps of logic that were just absurd - to say nothing of the fact that some of the moonbeam theories were mutually contradictory.

To set it all off, the Mythbusters ended the episode by going to a facility that allowed them to aim a laser at a reflection device that was left on the moon for precision distance measurements. The device is designed to simply bounce a signal back to earth, allowing an earth-based station to measure the time from the origination of the signal until its return, and compute the distance the signal traveled. Only way it works is if there's really something up there, something that was really man-made, and left behind at a purposeful location, during one of those moon missions....and guess what...it still works.

Why not just get a pic from hubble space scope....end all the BS. Not important like the other stuff on the news to distract the sheep.

The greatest tragedy of the loss of funding for the last moon missions was that the only thing really "cut" was the operations budgets. The real expensive stuff - the rockets - were already built. One is on display (on its side, in sections) at the Huntsville Space Center (if I'm correct), and the other was cannibalized for the politically valuable but scientifically useless Apollo-Soyuz joint "mission"

There were three space rated ones left over, of those two are currently essentially complete vehicles at Johnson and Kennedy Space Centers (though ironically mixed and matched from all three instead of keeping the same rockets together). The two in Huntsville's Space Center (one vertically, the other separated by stages horizontal ) were manufacturing test articles never meant to go into space, I think there are some backups, spare parts and test articles on display around the country as well.

I love conspiracy theories and codes.
They imply imagination and creativity.
The ending of the filmed version of The Shining was far better than the way the "original" writer ended it.And I'd bet you liked the film version of "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" better than the way Hemingway wrote it, too. (For those too young to remember the film, in it the leopard lived.)

I have it on good authority (the Internets don't lie) that Kubrick's last film, "Eyes Wide Shut", was an exposé on the Illuminati.
(and that actual Illuminati played themselves. It also exposed something about Tom Cruise and Scientology.)

And I'd bet you liked the film version of "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" better than the way Hemingway wrote it, too. (For those too young to remember the film, in it the leopard lived.)

I'm ashamed to admit that I haven't read the book or seen the film.
(I was too busy reading The Protocols of Zion, Six Seconds in Dallas, Outrage, Skull and Bones for Dummies, Them and The Mark Inside)

Heck . . . I thought the book was about a mountain in Africa with some snow on it.
I had no idea that a leopard was even involved, even less that it was involved in a life or death situation.
Did it die in a skiing "accident" like Sonny Bono?

Can't see just how far into your cheek you've got your tongue!

In case you're really serious (not bloody likely, as a Brit might say), the original is a short story, not a book, and starts with a few paragraphs about the dessicated corpse of a leopard high above the treeline of the mountain, far from his native habitat. It then goes on to tell about a writer who similarly got too far from his native habitat, and like the leopard died as a direct result.

The movie, one of Gregory Peck's potboilers, followed the story right up to the climactic suicidal ending -- and turned it inside out. Hemingway's tragedy got a typical Hollywood happy ending. The writer didn't die after all.

As an idealistic college student not yet old enough to vote, I actually preferred the film. As I became more experienced with how things happen in the real world, I began to understand what Hemingway had told us. And when Papa followed the same path himself, I realized that he had given us his final words long in advance of the event.

To this day, if you have a strong enough laser you can bounce it off mirrors set up on the surface of the moon by Apollo missions 11, 14 and 15(set up for lunar laser ranging). You can also use a strong telescope and see the items left by the missions. If you believe the Apollo landings are a hoax and we have not touched down on the moon, you are not very intelligent. New NASA pics show Apollo astronauts' footpaths on the moon (http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-apollo-landing-sites-photos/19756/)

Precisely. For the naysayers who are stupid as a box of rocks photographic evidence is viewable in the internet.

When I was about 15, I was working at a gas station and the topic was all about landing on the moon. I had a man (customer) give me his reason why it was a hoax......he said he saw a picture of the president on the phone talking to an astronaut in outer space. He said he knew it was all a lie then because common sense told him that there were no telephone poles out there..... true story.

My dad tried to take snapshots with a Brownie Camera (by Kodak) of the TV screen documenting the Moon Landing.
(And he helped The Physicists at what once was The National Bureau of Standards build the very first Cesium Beam Atomic Clock)
(in the "blue collar division of the Time Keepers =)

All of the photos/prints were/are/and remain blurry.
On account of the primitive flash bulb camera technology involved. =)

This probably has something to do with the current popularity of Facebook, et. al. =)

Is it just more fun to embrace stupidity then facts? It's like the people who are anti-vaccine and now we have diseases that have been essentially extinct for decades reappearing and killing kids.

Is it just more fun to embrace stupidity then facts? It's like the people who are anti-vaccine and now we have diseases that have been essentially extinct for decades reappearing and killing kids.

It is not more fun to embrace stupidity than facts.
I don't like people who resist or revile vaccines nor the fact that children die unnecessarily from any form of stupidity.
(however: that isn't the attitude that did or didn't put men on the moon)

(ps/eta: While I will admit that I like to poke fun at stupidity, I refuse to embrace it. =)

If American Corporations could make money on the moon, we'd have regularly scheduled flights today.

You have to believe the physics. There is evidence on the video from the surface of the moon that shows physical phenomena that is impossible to reproduce anywhere in the known universe except on the surface of the moon. The moons gravity is 1/6 that of earth so any object moving with a horizontal motion and no longer undergoing any force that caused it to move, will move along a trajectory that proves 1/6 Earth's gravity was present, and since we can't produce 1/6 Earths gravity on Earth there is only one possible answer - the video was shot on the surface of the moon. Specifically, look at the dirt kicked up be astronauts running across the moon. The debris goes 6X further horizontally than it would on earth and there is no way to fake it.

I remember the 727(?) that was used for anti gravity training. The aircraft
would fly up and down providing several seconds of weightlessness. I have
no idea what degree of weightlessness it provided i.e. 1/2, 1/6, etc...

It only appears to show weightlessness. I assure you gravity is still there.

If American Corporations could make money on the moon, we'd have regularly scheduled flights today.

I think the line would be long for a trip to the moon and back

I think the line would be long for a trip to the moon and back

The issue is cost and customer base size capable and willing. Even going to low earth orbit, the cheapest commercial seats that will will be coming online in the near future will be at least 10 to 20 million, if the get the vertical landing down and rapid reusability it will at least be a few hundred thousand to a couple million per seat. Before the nineties Russia did not even know what the cost was per seat, one of the billionaires that wanted to go to space funded a study by them, since they were open to the idea but had never considered it in that way. None of the other governments that have sent people to space have ever sold seats.

Thousands of people were involved with the Moon Missions. If they were a hoax. Somebody (actually thousands of people) would have ratted it out and cashed in on what they knew. We American's are know for not being able to keep our big mouthes shut especially when we can cash in on what we know. The only people that buy this bill of goods are the conspiracy theorists.

I will admit I have always loved this video of Buzz Aldrin.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

Thousands of people were involved with the Moon Missions. If they were a hoax. Somebody (actually thousands of people) would have ratted it out and cashed in on what they knew. We American's are know for not being able to keep our big mouthes shut especially when we can cash in on what we know. The only people that buy this bill of goods are the conspiracy theorists.


Why is it that the same people who wouldn't trust government to run a lemonade stand also thinks them capable of this level of cover-up. Government can't run anything efficiently - and that includes faking years worth of moon landings.

Why is it that the same people who wouldn't trust government to run a lemonade stand also thinks them capable of this level of cover-up. Government can't run anything efficiently - and that includes faking years worth of moon landings.

Egggggggzaktly.

This is the one overarching, compelling, inescapabale issue with ALL the moon landing conspiracy theories.

I didn't want to start a new thread over this and it kind of goes along with this thread:


A quarter of Americans surveyed could not correctly answer that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, according to a report out Friday from the National Science Foundation.
...
To the question "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth," 26 percent of those surveyed answered incorrectly.

1 In 4 Americans Thinks The Sun Goes Around The Earth, Survey Says : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says)

As bad as that is, apparently there have been some similar studies in other countries and we are not even the worst, like 1/3 of Europeans got it wrong.

I wonder about surveys like that. Are 1 in 4 people really that dumb? Or are 1 in 4 people smartasses who think it's funny to sabotage a survey?

I wonder about surveys like that. Are 1 in 4 people really that dumb? Or are 1 in 4 people smartasses who think it's funny to sabotage a survey?

I don't know about dumb, but I am sure that percentage is ignorant on the subject. Without first being told by someone else I suspect that 95% of the people would believe the Sun revolved around the Earth.

My dad tried to take snapshots with a Brownie Camera (by Kodak) of the TV screen documenting the Moon Landing.
(And he helped The Physicists at what once was The National Bureau of Standards build the very first Cesium Beam Atomic Clock)
(in the "blue collar division of the Time Keepers =)



Did your father work at the Bureau? I spent a lot of my childhood living in Frederick while my dad was a Neurophysiologist at the Bureau in the 70s. I was in his lab all the time. They had an old mothballed Univac there I liked to look around in.

My dad actually studied the eyes of the men killed in the Apollo 1 disaster when he was a grad student at George Washington University in DC.

He worked there from the early 50's to the mid-60's. The person over the section with which he was associated was a fellow named Dr. Richard Mockler who was in charge of developing the first Cesium beam atomic clock. Dad's job title was "Scientific Instrument Maker" which basically translates to "World Class Machinist." He made some of the ultra-precision parts that the physicists needed to build the clock. And this was all done before the advent of computer assisted design and manufacturing, using things such as milling machines, lathes, very fine files and a lot of skill. He helped me with a Pinewood Derby project one year. The result wasn't quite the DeLorean, in "Back to The Future," but it was close. He also developed some Teflon bushings for the squeaky exercise wheel in my younger brother's hamster's cage. Not only did they stop the noise, they probably increased the quality of life for the hamster. =)

He worked there from the early 50's to the mid-60's. The person over the section with which he was associated was a fellow named Dr. Richard Mockler who was in charge of developing the first Cesium beam atomic clock. Dad's job title was "Scientific Instrument Maker" which basically translates to "World Class Machinist." He made some of the ultra-precision parts that the physicists needed to build the clock. And this was all done before the advent of computer assisted design and manufacturing, using things such as milling machines, lathes, very fine files and a lot of skill. He helped me with a Pinewood Derby project one year. The result wasn't quite the DeLorean, in "Back to The Future," but it was close. He also developed some Teflon bushings for the squeaky exercise wheel in my younger brother's hamster's cage. Not only did they stop the noise, they probably increased the quality of life for the hamster. =)

Very cool. My dad worked in the sound lab. He studied linking to the hearing section if the brain for deaf people. Some of his work is in Cochlear implants today. The other half of his building was using sound as a weapon. Blowing things up with beams of sound.

The commute from Frederick must have been a bit time consuming . . .
We were within easy walking or bicycling or driving distance to The Bureau.
(and by "we" i mean "us"--that is, The KidZ in The 'Hood =)
Dad always chose to drive a few blocks and then find parking.

I remember there was this weird looking, old-fashioned, building out in the middle of a field, next to The Bureau. It had a green roof with a lot of chimneys. It was called "The Cryrogenics Lab." We, as kids, never paid attention to the rinky-dink, barbed wire fences saying "U.S. Government/No Trespassing." But we never went near that building. Scientists used to visit the schools to show what near Absolute Zero Temperatures could do to various materials. Liquid Nitrogen or whatever. About the same time, we were being lectured in school about the dangers of the blasting caps involved in the creation of suburbs (at the foot of The Rockies). We never found any blasting caps.

(This is either evidence for or against The Fake Moon Landing.
It's a MetaCognition kinda thing. =)

(btw: Why do you suppose that the Scientists working on blowing things up with sound waves didn't understand that some people aren't auditory or kinesthetic learners? One of the guys Dad met, early in his late career was Werner von Braun and when the choice was given to move to Florida (Cape Canaveral) or Colorado (NBS), he chose Colorado. But I was only 2 years old . . . so don't blame me. =)

I guess the main thing I got from Dad was an appreciation for detail in hands-on activities involving a brain. Like cooking, carpentry and keyboarding.

(p.s.: I don't believe The Moon Landing was a Hoax. =)

The commute from Frederick must have been a bit time consuming . . .
We were within easy walking or bicycling or driving distance to The Bureau.
(and by "we" i mean "us"--that is, The KidZ in The 'Hood =)
Dad always chose to drive a few blocks and then find parking.

I remember there was this weird looking, old-fashioned, building out in the middle of a field, next to The Bureau. It had a green roof with a lot of chimneys. It was called "The Cryrogenics Lab." We, as kids, never paid attention to the rinky-dink, barbed wire fences saying "U.S. Government/No Trespassing." But we never went near that building. Scientists used to visit the schools to show what near Absolute Zero Temperatures could do to various materials. Liquid Nitrogen or whatever. About the same time, we were being lectured in school about the dangers of the blasting caps involved in the creation of suburbs (at the foot of The Rockies). We never found any blasting caps.

(This is either evidence for or against The Fake Moon Landing.
It's a MetaCognition kinda thing. =)

(btw: Why do you suppose that the Scientists working on blowing things up with sound waves didn't understand that some people aren't auditory or kinesthetic learners? One of the guys Dad met, early in his late career was Werner von Braun and when the choice was given to move to Florida (Cape Canaveral) or Colorado (NBS), he chose Colorado. But I was only 2 years old . . . so don't blame me. =)

I guess the main thing I got from Dad was an appreciation for detail in hands-on activities involving a brain. Like cooking, carpentry and keyboarding.

(p.s.: I don't believe The Moon Landing was a Hoax. =)


It was a cool place. The room where they hit stuff with sound had really thick walls and you were behind I don't know how many panes of glass. The walls were covered in what looked like gray egg shell crate except the cones were like a foot long. The Univac was huge, partially buried and looked like something from a James Bond movie with all the tape drives and work stations. Probably far less capable than my iPhone.

I'm curious.

Is there anyone who believes that the Moon landings were a hoax?
Seriously. Is there anyone?

I'm curious.

Is there anyone who believes that the Moon landings were a hoax?
Seriously. Is there anyone?

Garin

Garin
heh heh heh . . .
(no kidding: that was funny!)
well played.
(I never "LOL" but . . .)

It was a cool place. The room where they hit stuff with sound had really thick walls and you were behind I don't know how many panes of glass. The walls were covered in what looked like gray egg shell crate except the cones were like a foot long. The Univac was huge, partially buried and looked like something from a James Bond movie with all the tape drives and work stations. Probably far less capable than my iPhone.

I wonder how much money was spent to determine that sound wasn't an effective weapon in The Cold War . . .
At least now we know what time it is . . . =)

Thanks to the efforts of NBS (now NIST).

I remember once, as a child, asking Dad what he made at The National Bureau of Standards.
His reply: "Money."
For years thereafter I had The NBS confused with The Denver Mint (TDM).

(he was a first-generation Swedish immigrant with no sense of humor so i didn't know he was capable of making a joke =)

The Bureau really was a cool place. Their company picnics, up in the mountains, were even better than the Elks Club picnics. =)

(still not believing in The Moon Landing Hoax . . . btw =)

heh heh heh . . .
(no kidding: that was funny!)
well played.
(I never "LOL" but . . .)

No, he said a while ago he didn't believe it.