Fifty six years ago today Neil and Buzz landed in the Arizona desert, uhhh the surface of the moon

[AAT65]

They would have to have that level of documentation, as most of the stuff they were doing had never been done before. They were writing the textbooks, reference manuals, and troubleshooting guides as they went.

But they were documenting it! Like I said a few posts back, these guys (& gals - don’t forget the women working in the back rooms and on the computer teams) were well managed. (And at least after the Apollo 1 disaster they were also well led, which ain’t the same thing.)

 

[Sparky2]

BTW, as an aside , because GB has been flinging it around on this thread , I’m reminded that we all really need to use the words “kook” “lousy” and especially “crummy” maybe a little more .

I knew “kook” in its surfing/skateboarding usage but conspiracy theorists/whackjob angle is great too.

That is all

Okay, I'll play.

First guy: "I have this new Les Paul and the headstock is guaranteed to never snap off."

Second guy: "YOU are a kook!"

First guy: "Why, you lousy bum. I oughta knock your block off!"

Second guy: "You crummy louse, I dare ya to try!"

First guy: "Shut your pie-hole, or I'll give you a knuckle sandwich."

Third guy: "You're both a coupla maroons. Schmendrakes, both of ya!"

First and Second guy: "Why I oughta......."


I'm gonna shut up now.

 

[Frodebro]

But they were documenting it! Like I said a few posts back, these guys (& gals - don’t forget the women working in the back rooms and on the computer teams) were well managed. (And at least after the Apollo 1 disaster they were also well led, which ain’t the same thing.)

I saw a documentary not all that long ago about a team of women responsible for crunching the numbers to verify the trajectory and such. That was actually a pretty big deal for the time.

 

[cometazzi]

Have you seen the navigation computer? No microchips. All hand-soldered using discrete components. Incredible.

I'm late to the thread but were I earlier I'd have posted this video as well. It's hilarious.

 

[41144]

Personally, Moon landings happened - FACT.
Other parts of this thread.... hilarious

 

[Knows3Chords]

I saw a documentary not all that long ago about a team of women responsible for crunching the numbers to verify the trajectory and such. That was actually a pretty big deal for the time.

I think that was were the main character(s) in the movie "Hidden Figures" was based on. Could be wrong.

 

[Frodebro]

I think that was were the main character(s) in the movie "Hidden Figures" was based on. Could be wrong.

That sounds familiar, it could be the movie I saw.

 

[getbent]

 

[Fiesta Red]

I don't know who to believe - decades old, established news sources with ethical journalistic standards that are legally libel for falsehoods, or a basement pod-caster hawking dubious erectile dysfunction pills...

Do the pills work?

Asking for a friend…

 

[Frodebro]

Do the pills work?

Asking for a friend…

They have interesting side effects when combined with laxatives. A friend told me that.

 

[Texicaster]

I'd argue you have it backward. NEITHER side benefits.

When both sides have to measure their argument and there is point and counterpoint an honest debate ensues.

no one is winning from what we currently have. no one.

Freedom of speech is not harmed by the fairness doctrine, to the contrary, you get to say what you have to say (If you are a news organization) but, you are obliged to admit that other viewpoints exist.

If a viewpoint is 'correct' it will compel, especially if it is contrasted with the 'wrong' idea, right?

Go back and look at what the fairness doctrine was and what it compelled organizations to do. It made news NOT a profit center, which means we don't have to have Robin Roberts or Ginger Zee or any of that.. .we can just have straight up news.

So...

We should of had a discussion about the moon landing being fake in 1969. In fact HALF the narrative should have been debunking the landing.... based on "fairness". Should we be discussing flat earth? Many are not convinced with the data...perhaps they should have a place at the table as well.....

At what point does a counter opinion have enough traction that it MUST be discussed? Of course you prefer the feds having control over that it seems and they always do a great job! Right?

 

[Texicaster]

There are still journalists around: you need to work out which ones to ignore, just like this place.
Everyone should put a few hours into listening to this:

BBC World Service - 13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle, Season 1: The Apollo 11 story

How the first moon landing was saved. The story of the people who made Apollo 11 happen

www.bbc.co.uk

I dare any of you sceptics to listen to all of that and then come back and say any of the Apollo missions was faked. The truth is there were an enormous number of engineering challenges which were tackled and overcome by hard work, good science, good engineering and good management. Oh yeah and a truckload of money. And then the craft were flown by highly-skilled and very brave men.

Not so much....I think while internet disseminates fake news it is a source for truth if one know how to follow citations and apply critical thinking. Quit relying on "trusted" sources as there are NONE! But again we have access to an amazing wealth of information. Learn to use it!

As I alluded to before a VERY intelligent friend of mine blew my mind by refusing to read a paper I sent and preferred an ad hominem attack on the author. I kept saying "follow the citations" but he was too wrapped up in his cognitive dissonance...even though if he read it he would have been pleased I'm sure.

 

[telleutelleme]

Greatest scientific and engineering feat of my life so far. I was fortunate enough to be remotely involved with Gemini 9A as part of the USAF. Parked in Nigeria in case the re-entry didn't land where planned. I hope I will live to see a Mars landing.

My first wife's mother was positive it was a fake. Of course she championed every conspiracy of the day. New Orleans was a hot bed for conspiracy back then.

 

[Frodebro]

So...

We should of had a discussion about the moon landing being fake in 1969. In fact HALF the narrative should have been debunking the landing.... based on "fairness". Should we be discussing flat earth? Many are not convinced with the data...perhaps they should have a place at the table as well.....

At what point does a counter opinion have enough traction that it MUST be discussed? Of course you prefer the feds having control over that it seems and they always do a great job! Right?

It can be a slippery slope, but overall it's better to allow everyone to have their say than to allow one group to decide which opinions are valid and which are not.

 

[ISmellSmoke]

Do the pills work?

Asking for a friend…

No, they just made me a big d@#k..

 

[willietheweirdo]

Keepin' it real

 

[Texicaster]

It can be a slippery slope, but overall it's better to allow everyone to have their say than to allow one group to decide which opinions are valid and which are not.

Exactly!

Fairness doctrines were pre-internet, pre-pod casts etc. We no longer have to rely upon networks and publishers to voice our opinions.

Ideally truth should matter but lets face it any "fairness" was for one side of the aisle to make progress into the others. If you think it was not manipulated I have a story about a fake moon landing you'll love!

 

[getbent]

So...

We should of had a discussion about the moon landing being fake in 1969. In fact HALF the narrative should have been debunking the landing.... based on "fairness". Should we be discussing flat earth? Many are not convinced with the data...perhaps they should have a place at the table as well.....

At what point does a counter opinion have enough traction that it MUST be discussed? Of course you prefer the feds having control over that it seems and they always do a great job! Right?

The moon landing had the whole world cheering. I don't think there was a real 'side' against it and it was only kooks who thought it was faked...which is still true. It is not rational to question the trips to the moon. I mean that without equivocation, there is NOTHING to discuss nor debate. Neil Armstrong did exactly what the record says.

I think go back and actually read the doctrine... I think, then, you won't pose your first question at all.

The second paragraph is almost hyperbole... again, I think ACTUALLY reading the doctrine will help.

In 90% of cases during the years that the fairness doctrine was in place, the networks policed themselves and did, overall, a pretty good job.

Looking back, which events were 'gotten wrong'? We had My Lai, Teddy Kennedy's car wreck, the pentagon papers, watergate, Agnew's corruption, all the mafia stories. In many of those cases, coverups and managing the message was tried and failed...

What it kept from the air was full on propagandists just spewing (often) lies and nonsense on either side...and it kept marketing from being part of the news.

You are right though... what we have will probably hold... I cannot see how there will ever be the will (or ability to overcome the propaganda) to choose a thoughtful path...

It is fashionable to think of the government as incompetent and working against our needs... and yet, individual congress people enjoy huge majorities at home among their voters. We love our congressman, but hate congress... how is that rational?

 

[scrapyardblue]

Hey guys, the post was meant to acknowledge a great achievement. Let's not get it deleted or locked with el toro poo poo.

I think some of the EL Toro poo poo was ingrained into your thread title.

 

[Toto'sDad]

View attachment 1396855

He's digging up the dirt on this whole moon landing business.