The Moon does not exist!

[El Osito Candela]

somebody go and slap this dude :trout:

[jackwanders]

None of the guys facts in that story were close to being correct. Plus look at the photographs, did someone photoshop the picture of the guys bald head in 1852, to make it look like the moon? None of any of that makes sense at all.

Satire. Satire.

Satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire satire.

There. Is that enough now?

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

People/sites like this give discredit to ALL conspiracies (some of which actually DO have merit)...

i thought the same thing. stuff like this is why the masses dont take conspiracies seriously.

although this thread is making me roffle all over myself. :laugh:

[jackwanders]

i thought the same thing. stuff like this is why the masses dont take conspiracies seriously.

although this thread is making me roffle all over myself. :laugh:

I think there's a much more direct reason why the masses don't take conspiracies seriously...

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

I think there's a much more direct reason why the masses don't take conspiracies seriously...

b/c we're conditioned to believe theyre a bunch of bologna? yep.

look up the definition for conspiracy. it's not so crazy. it's a valid word, and they do exist. Enron was a conspiracy, for example.

someone can conspire to kill someone... but until theyre proven guilty it's just a conspiracy theory. does that make the prosecutor a nutjob? the jury may not believe him at all.

:sleep:

[kaffra]

looks more like a joke site, with reference to the fake lunar landing stories. they go one step higher and claim the whole moon is fake :D

[PL_ Veteran]

It was there tonight, I checked.

Thank you for putting my mind at ease :laugh:

[jackwanders]

b/c we're conditioned to believe theyre a bunch of bologna? yep.

look up the definition for conspiracy. it's not so crazy. it's a valid word, and they do exist. Enron was a conspiracy, for example.

someone can conspire to kill someone... but until theyre proven guilty it's just a conspiracy theory. does that make the prosecutor a nutjob? the jury may not believe him at all.

:sleep:

Mmm, semantics. Always a good fallback when you don't really have an argument. You know full well what "conspiracy theory" connotates. Thinking someone conspired to kill your wife? Not a "conspiracy theory". Thinking the US gov't and NASA conspired to fake the moon landings? That's a "conspiracy theory".

[_sphinx_]

Can you give me some physical proof that its real.

Care to hop on with me on the next Virgin Galactic trip?

Imagine when these people take to space and find out that the moon's missing...that'd be a big disappointment, wouldn't it?

Mathematical impossibilities

Another impossibility that has always been an embarrassment to the scientific establishment is the obvious fact that an object as heavy as the moon, caught in the earth?s gravity, would inevitably come crashing down upon us at immense speeds. Responses to this argument from the Lunarists have always been weak, and always couched in that scientific newspeak designed to confuse the sincere questioner without actually saying anything.

The establishment most often cites the work of Isaac Newton in support of its story. Newton is well known for coming up with entirely theoretical notions such as the Law of Universal Gravitation, and his more famous Laws of Motion which serve to gloss over the more obvious inconsistencies in the moon story. What he is less known for is his "extra-curricular" pursuits, which he kept quite secret during his lifetime but which have since been uncovered. Newton was a dominating figure in the Royal Society, a fellowship riddled with members of the various secret societies whose goal to dominate the world has already been outlined. Newton himself possessed copies of Rosicrucian manifestos, and, as is evident in his notes, had studied them thoroughly. Many of his biographers suspect that he shared the religious beliefs of many of his colleagues. It does not take a genius to conclude that these beliefs may have influenced his scientific reasoning.

This is, of course, the reason why revisionists are excluded from academic institutions. The majority of scientists and professors of most universities are members of organizations such as these, as are most of the scientists who work for NASA. Those that are not realize that their livelihood depends on towing the establishment line, and therefore only a few have had the courage to speak out.

However, eminent scientists, working in defiance of the establishment, have proven conclusively, using the most scrupulous methods, that if an object such as the moon really existed, it could not remain fixed in the sky for very long. Proactive arguments in support of this finding return to a closer examination of the original mathematical formula generally referenced when rallying to solidify the moon?s improbable existence:

F = GMm/r2

Where F = gravitational attraction

G = the gravitational constant

M = mass of one body

m = mass of the second body

r = distance between the two bodies

Established by Newton himself, this numerical gem is based completely on the assumption that the moon travels in concentric circles around our planet. F (the gravitational attraction holding the moon to its "true" path) requires that r (the distance between the two celestial bodies) remains constant. Should the distance, r, decrease at any given moment, the gravitational force will increase in strength. When this event occurs the moon will be pulled towards this planet. According to Newton?s theory that a body set in motion remains in motion, such an incident would initiate a logical series of events with a singular chaotic result: propagated drawing of satellite to planet until the two massive bodies collide.

However, even the most fanatical Lunarists no longer cling to the absurd notion that objects in the solar system travel in concentric circles. These so-called "scientists" have changed their story so many times, who knows what to believe anymore? The currently fashionable dogma is that the route followed by celestial bodies is not circular but a concave oval with the origin point at the centre (in the case of the earth, the sun; in the case of the moon, the earth) followed by a spiraling series of pathways. Thus, the moon is not maintaining a constant distance from our planet. Our orbiting satellite is forever oscillating towards us, drawing near then distant, in a continuous cycle. Each successive approach brings this massive wonder closer to our midst.

In other words, the moon does indeed alter its distance from the earth. So why is it not widespread knowledge that the end ? mathematically predicated BY NEWTON?S OWN FORMULA - has been anticipated and is drawing near? Due to some irrational explanation the moon has managed to defy those very laws of physics that were originally developed to justify its existence.

AHAHAHAHHA *weeps*

I hope they give me that reward, because I can disprove that rubbish in less than 10 lines....mathematical impossibilites my ass....

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

Mmm, semantics. Always a good fallback when you don't really have an argument. You know full well what "conspiracy theory" connotates. Thinking someone conspired to kill your wife? Not a "conspiracy theory". Thinking the US gov't and NASA conspired to fake the moon landings? That's a "conspiracy theory".

it's the same thing. youre differentiating b/w whats considered sane and insane.

all im saying is that people need to break the mindset that the term "conspiracy theory" is a crazy term that only insane people dream up. most of the time that is not the case.

and, tbh, i dont know how i feel about your example of the faked moon landings. there are some very valid questions that CANT be answered. there are some very valid questions that CAN be answered. and until you do your own research on the topic (any topic), you cant make blanket statements about it.

[jackwanders]

it's the same thing. youre differentiating b/w whats considered sane and insane.

all im saying is that people need to break the mindset that the term "conspiracy theory" is a crazy term that only insane people dream up. most of the time that is not the case.

and, tbh, i dont know how i feel about your example of the faked moon landings. there are some very valid questions that CANT be answered. there are some very valid questions that CAN be answered. and until you do your own research on the topic (any topic), you cant make blanket statements about it.

I'm not saying conspiracy theories are only for the insane. I am saying that "conspiracy theories" are almost always based on conjecture and lots of questions, without any real attempt to find the real answer for those questions. For conspiracy theorists, the conspiracy is not a last resort when all other possibilities fail to explain the situation, the conspiracy is the initial judgment, and so far as they're concerned, it's true until someone unequivocally proves them wrong.

Please feel free to submit any and all questions about the Apollo missions that CANT be answered.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

I'm not saying conspiracy theories are only for the insane. I am saying that "conspiracy theories" are almost always based on conjecture and lots of questions, without any real attempt to find the real answer for those questions. For conspiracy theorists, the conspiracy is not a last resort when all other possibilities fail to explain the situation, the conspiracy is the initial judgment, and so far as they're concerned, it's true until someone unequivocally proves them wrong.

Please feel free to submit any and all questions about the Apollo missions that CANT be answered.

I'll agree w/ you on this statement. Youre right, most conspiracy theories ask questions and assume too much before ever finding the facts. 'Most' being the keyword, not always.

as for the moon landings... i dont claim to be a professional on this topic... i dont really care either way tbh. there's bigger things out there than proving or disproving the effin moon landings. anyways, here's a couple odd statements that ive heard/read/seen before.

1. the Van Allen radiation belts. How did they travel through w/o dying from vast amounts of radiation?

2. howd the astronauts take such amazing pictures when the cameras they had there mounted on their chest w/o a viewfinder?

3. there is video of a 360 degree camera feed... they spin around, initially showing the moon lander, but when they get around 360 degrees the moon lander is gone. there is other photos and movies of objects being in a scene but suddenly arent there, even though it's the same location w/ the same mountains the background

4. why is it in some pictures that an astronauts antenna will be showing above his head, but in other photos of the supposed same mission, the antenna isnt there?

5. why is there no disruption of the ground beneath the moon lander if it had a powerful rocket engine to slow it's descent?

6. why hasnt anyone gone back to the moon since? surely there'd be hundreds of reasons to go back. not even the Russians would try.

7. w/ all the failures of NASA's projects prior to and after the Apollo missions... at a success rate of about 25% (or something to that effect), howd they get 80% of the Apollo missions just right? (i dont remember the correct percentages i read about)

ok im done. anyone want to educate me? dont shoot the messenger... im completely middle ground on this issue.

[jackwanders]

1. the Van Allen radiation belts. How did they travel through w/o dying from vast amounts of radiation?

First, the ship itself blocked a good deal of the radiation. Second, the astronauts passed through in about an hour, too quickly to receive an unhealthy does of radiation. Claims to the contrary do not back themselves up with any evidence.

Technical data on radiation received by Apollo astronauts

2. howd the astronauts take such amazing pictures when the cameras they had there mounted on their chest w/o a viewfinder?

Understand that the public is only seeing the photos that came out well. It is ridiculous to assume that every picture taken was crisp, clear, focused and centered. The large majority of the photos taken are likely sitting at the bottom of a compost heap.

3. there is video of a 360 degree camera feed... they spin around, initially showing the moon lander, but when they get around 360 degrees the moon lander is gone. there is other photos and movies of objects being in a scene but suddenly arent there, even though it's the same location w/ the same mountains the background

This deals with the fact that there is no atmosphere on the moon, and as a result, no air to distort geographical features that are a great distance away. It is very difficult to tell whether a hill is 1km away or 100km away. When you pan a camera, objects farther away move through the frame more slowly. If you move the camera so that an object that was in frame is now out of frame, objects far off in the distance won't have moved much. So while you might expect the background of the photos to change as the camera pans, it actually changes far less than you think, because the mountains in the background are much farther away than they seem to be.

4. why is it in some pictures that an astronauts antenna will be showing above his head, but in other photos of the supposed same mission, the antenna isnt there?

I have never seen a photo of an Apollo astronaut with an antenna on his head, so I can't comment on this.

5. why is there no disruption of the ground beneath the moon lander if it had a powerful rocket engine to slow it's descent?

Again, it centers around the fact that the moon has no gravity and no atmosphere. That, and the engine had a throttle. The engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust, but was throttled down to about 3,000 lbs. The nozzle was about 54 inches in diameter, yielding an area of 2300 square inches. The pressure generated was only about 1.5 lbs per square inch. Not that much. And because there's no gravity and no atmosphere, the exhaust spreads out quickly. There is no air to force the exhaust into a column.

Encyclopedia Astronautica: Relevant Data

6. why hasnt anyone gone back to the moon since? surely there'd be hundreds of reasons to go back. not even the Russians would try.

After the Apollo missions, there was no reason to go back for a while. Then the current shuttle program was adopted. The shuttle, however, is not suited for lunar missions. It is only capable of low earth orbit. This is why an entire new program is being set up to build a new craft capable of lunar missions, which are scheduled to start in the years to come.

7. w/ all the failures of NASA's projects prior to and after the Apollo missions... at a success rate of about 25% (or something to that effect), howd they get 80% of the Apollo missions just right? (i dont remember the correct percentages i read about)

I haven't read about this claim, all I can conjecture is that it was the space race, and NASA had every reason to make sure they succeeded. Also, just because a mission 'succeeds' doesn't mean there weren't problems.

[whitebread]

:rolleyes: That site is so hokey. What would the government (or anyone, for that matter) have to gain by falsely convincing us that the moon exists?

[Lare2]

If the moon does not exists then, that big white ball in the sky is God's left nut. :rolleyes:

^ and when it rains :rolleyes:

God gets horny sometimes...

(sorry if someone got offended)

OMFG Those three replies made me laugh so hard :laugh:

[h00nta]

There's leftover chilli n rice on the other side - the big man has to eat off of something...

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

First, the ship itself blocked a good deal of the radiation. Second, the astronauts passed through in about an hour, too quickly to receive an unhealthy does of radiation. Claims to the contrary do not back themselves up with any evidence.

Technical data on radiation received by Apollo astronauts

...

The total amount of radiation received is about the same as you get during an x-ray, they went fast and had shielding.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

thanks jack and the_decryptor (Y)

Jack - the moon has 1/6th the gravity of earth, not NO gravity.

[jackwanders]

thanks jack and the_decryptor (Y)

Jack - the moon has 1/6th the gravity of earth, not NO gravity.

right, thanks. don't know why i said that. my statements still hold though, just replace "no" with "low" :D

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

somebody go and slap this dude :trout:

look, even if the fact is that the moon doesnt exist i see it every night [not through glass on a new moon] and i blieve its there. why are you people trying to confuse me? :no:

[Jazket]

Woah. Is the internet becoming such a boring thing? :unsure:

I'm starting to think I need 2 get away from it now that I've seen this and the other story here in the Area 51 about The Future of the United States... (go read, it should be one of the first threads) :shiftyninja:

[RvXtm]

come on people....moon does not exist ??? ...right...

[Martyn]

So someone photoshopped my eyes :blink:?

[Pox]

Haha, I'm pretty sure a lot of that site is a joke.. I mean read this:

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/Feedback.htm

...

Me. I have a BA in history, and often do machine code programming on my old ZX-Spectrum. I even do hardware extensions, e.g. solder joystick adapters. Therefore I qualify as engineer and consequently can be regarded as scientifically credible. I have done a forensic examination of the said matter, namely an empirical study in which I have thrown a given number of objects at the moon, a number large enough to be of statistical relevance. Here is my data:

Exp. weight and type of projectile v0 accuracy

------------------------------------------------------

1 Stone, 125g ca. 15m/s 0%

2 Rubber ball, 63g " 0%

3 Empty wine bottle, 280g " 0%

4 Another stone, 289g " 0%

5 Round pebble, 140g " 0%

6 Brick (slightly damaged), 1300g " 0%

7 Donut, 75g " 0%

The result is obvious. If there would have been something like the alleged "moon" then I would have most certainly hit it at least marginally. But EACH AND EVERY of my throws missed. The conclusion is without doubt that the moon is non-material - either a projection or a collective hallucination.

...

:rofl: great laugh.

[Gio Takahashi]

Mmkay. I find it quite funny that some people were actually convinced that the site was being serious in the first place. Even the disclaimer indirectly admits that the site is fake.

Oh but wait "He might just be serious, and the site might actually INDEED be set up by an accident." Pff.

Though all in all, it was a good funny read.

I like a good chaos read every now and then.