Did We Really Land On The Moon?


 Share

Recommended Posts

AikenDrum

I think we all need to step back and look at what we are doing here.

We're [spending time] argueing on the internet about weather or not humans have landed on the moon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven P.
Both sides have not been arguing over this issue, the skeptics have been saying "omg the flag is moving" and nasa says "Hey look, Science you twits!" Just because the skeptics are too stupid to realize how science has PERFECTLY LOGICAL answers for all the claims that skeptics make doesnt mean that its a hoax, that just doesnt make sense. <<made shorter>>

I hope you aren't implying that it's bad to question some agency or country that allows everyone to assume it is true, because if you are thats just as wrong as the way you are responding to people like Toxicfume who already stated twice that he did not say it was faked OR that it was true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

shockz

I think theres more of a chance that we did land on the moon then not landing on it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toxicfume

Alright, in this post, i'll focus more on the side of the hoax, not for the sake of arguing with you, but just to find the real truth. Okay, let me tell you, i don't believe in ALL of the points being raised by the conspiracy theorist's...for this flag waving theory, i tend to believe that this was not a lie, since there is no air, thus less friction on moon, so a little turn of the pole could result in a huge wave of the flag. Okay, that i understand, and there is no reason why i wouldn't accept that plain fact.

And the site you are talking about, it itself is missing a lot of points against the hoaxes which i myself could point out, for instance, the the theory inconsistency of the shadows of rocks on moon they were pointing out, they failed to mention that there are 2 sources of light on the moon, one is the sun and the other is our earth itself, which relfects the suns light, thus the reason behind some shadows not being totally parallel, this was said by one of the scientists on TV who was discussing the hoax(that wasn't the claim i found convincing as i stated in my first post, the one i find a little wierd is that when the astronaut is climibing down, his whole body is brightly lit even though he's under the craft's wide-radial shadow, that should be covering atleast the lower half of his body as some of the video specialists have calculated from the footage). Thus, the reason why i don't really find the site that credible, and moreover, it's the second time i'm saying this, there are no sources for some of the things the author has said, that need sources before one should believe.

The shows i have watched here, they did interview scientists and some of the people who were directly behind Apollo project itself. I'll have to watch the documentary again since i can't recall all the people they interviewed, one of them was the one behind the apollo rocket's engine, who believes that the rocket shouldn't have made it that far, according to it's specs. And another person they interviewed was the one who built the cameras for the astronauts, who independantly pointed out anomilies in some pictures that were taken bythe camera he invented for the mission. Thats not just all..you seem to assume every skeptic person to be another Tom, Dick or Harry who has no credibility and/or idea but no..there are skeptics ranging from people who were somehow pretty much involved in the apollo project itself to credible scientists and engineers, and that's the main reason i've been skeptic, why do you think i'd be skeptic if it weren't for them? This documentary i watched did not deal with any of those "skeptics" you said like FOX did.

Now i can't remember the arguments they had that i found interesting off my head, this documentary was one of the several on the same subject by BBC.

And what are you talking about answers to the things I posted? THEY ARE THE ANSWERS! You will never find a hoax supporter with an answer for them, because THEY CANT DISPROVE SCIENCE.

Sure no one can disprove science, but if all that is the actual science under the actual supposed environment is entirely another question. And in this case i certainly hope the hoax supporters are wrong.

And i don't believe something just because everyone else does, that's just plain illogical.

Anyways, once again i want to point out, i don't support the hoaxers, which you seem to think i do, i just want to know the final cut here and sorry if there are spelling mistakes or some of the things i have written is a little disoriented, it's 2:00 am in the morning

Peace

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deron Dantzler

Yes you *cough*.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aaron901

i think we did. no question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toxicfume
I think theres more of a chance that we did land on the moon then not landing on it at all.

Amen, but i still emphasize, I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

eth3l

I saw this first posted, and thought it should be in the jokes forum, that video was hilarous - especially if you read the corresponding web apge, makes it all the funnier.

Well this totally dumb conversation has turned into a very intelligent conversation, and I would like to add my 2 bits. Namely to the "flag waving issue."

One of first laws of physics states that a body in motion can and will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. i.e. I can throw a rock from here to the other end of the universe unless another force, like gravity, acts on it and pulls it to the ground. If I was in space where there is no gravity, apart from the pull of the 'celestial orbs,' the rock would continue to the end of the universe until it hit something or was diverted from the pull of a star, planet or any other object with mass.

How does this parlay into the flag? Well, when the flag was mounted, it was moved, knocked, twisted, etc: a force acted upon it, causing it to enter into a state called 'motion." Thus the flag would not stop moving until another force acted upon it, like gravity, or air resistence. The moons gravity would eventually stop it, but that would take a while, and there is no air resistence in space.

Secondly to debunk the "moving flag theory:" Lets think about this. the conspiracy theorists think that the moon landing (note not landings) was filmed in a studio. Well I have been in a studio, and there is *not* much air movement. If anything that flag would have remained pretty still, unless a fan was set up to blow on it. Seriously, go home, and go into a room and hold a flag like the one on the moon. . . see how much movement there is - pretty much nothing. and the movement is not as exaggerated as the flag on the moon becasue there is air resistence in your room, not on the moon.

But anyway I guess the fan would be part of the conspiracy theory.

If thats true then I guess NASA scientists are the stupidest people on the planet. And considering that they had moon landings until the major finanacial recession of the 70s even when no one cared and, the major networks stopped airing the moon landings, NASA kept up this great conspiracy.

I just cant buy it. there is no logic in it at all.

But discussing it sure is fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven P.
If thats true then I guess NASA scientists are the stupidest people on the planet. And considering that they had moon landings until the major finanacial recession of the 70s even when no one cared and, the major networks stopped airing the moon landings, NASA kept up this great conspiracy.

Right up until the Vietnam war ended (so the skeptics say)

Link to post
Share on other sites

eth3l

As for the Van Allen Belts - well I think I have been exposed to more radiation cooking burritos in my microwave for the past 10 years then the astronauts would have been in a "spaceship" travelling 12 times the speed of sound through the Van Allen belts for 1 hour.

and Toxicfume - there is no reason for you not to know.

The only reason we have been offered as to why NASA faked it was political. If that was so we only needed to land there once or twice. but like I said above we went up there when the big political issue was Watergate, and Viet Nam, and so much more important stuff than the moon!

One question I want answered from a conspiracy dude is if the moon landings were faked, how did we get the picture "Earth rising?" Is that doctored?

10075144.jpg

Conspiracy theorists:

:alien: <-- they believe in these guys, but not that the world is round, or that men landed on the moon!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Otto

Honestly, I don't know and honestly, I don't care. :no:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven P.

It always fasinated me how pictures of the Earth in relation to the moon was not all that bigger than us looking at the moon at its nearest and clearest point. but Im no scientist and I wont pretend to know how big the moon is in relation to the Earth because I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kibler

"I hope you aren't implying that it's bad to question some agency or country that allows everyone to assume it is true, because if you are thats just as wrong as the way you are responding to people like Toxicfume who already stated twice that he did not say it was faked OR that it was true."

Hey look more assumptions! Did you miss my JFK line? I dont believe every bit of information the govt tries to stuff down my throat, but excuse me if I get a little defensive when some one starts going on about how we may not have landed on the friggin moon and that the govt made up something like that on such a grand scale.

HEy dude did you hear russia doesnt really exist I have never been there have you been there? How did you know you were there? That plane could have flown anywhere!!!! I bet the govt made up russia just so they could make a big military and lots of bombs dude I am telling you!!!!

-----

As for your questions on the photos Toxic, take a look at this site:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangodd...dard/moon01.htm

It thoroughly covers your questions. I guess I cant prove his work is any more real than the USSR was, but whatever.....

The engine not being powerful enough is a new one to me, I'll have to look that up. But remember, like some one already has pointed out, once you point yourself in the right direction and give yourself a boost there is NOTHING (for our purposes) slowing you down. In space, if you pushed off a rock in the right direction you would eventually get there, so the power of the engine would only dictate the time your trip would take....but I will try to find some better info for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven P.

Indeed, sorry Kibler :unsure: :blush: I missed that when replying, my apologies :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironman273
One question I want answered from a conspiracy dude is if the moon landings were faked, how did we get the picture "Earth rising?" ?Is that doctored?

10075144.jpg

NASA was using a pre-alpha version of Photoshop 1.0 in 1969 :DD

Seriously, though, besides all the stuff in Bad Astronomy (which I've read completely and I love how the logic kicks the skeptic llama's ass), if that movie were real, the line that Armstrong was supposed to say when he stepped on the moon was "That's one small step fora> man, one giant leap for mankind". Whether he forgot the "a" or it was lost in the static is still up for debate, but if there was a "previous take", you think he would've flubbed the line twice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

eth3l

Neobond:

It always fasinated me how pictures of the Earth in relation to the moon was not all that bigger than us looking at the moon at its nearest and clearest point. but Im no scientist and I wont pretend to know how big the moon is in relation to the Earth because I don't know.

I think what is more interesting is that the location of the moon and its size is so perfect that when it is lined up inbetween the sun and the earth it blocks the sun! and deviation in size or location would totally alter the ability of the moon to cause an eclipse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

eth3l
HEy dude did you hear russia doesnt really exist I have never been there have you been there? How did you know you were there? That plane could have flown anywhere!!!! I bet the govt made up russia just so they could make a big military and lots of bombs dude I am telling you!!!!

that's the money shot - right there!

good work Kibler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerichohol
NASA was using a pre-alpha version of Photoshop 1.0 in 1969 :D

Yes i'm sure they were ;)

But re: this. OH i'm quite sure that humans have landed on the moon. Come on you dont think so we did? :o

Nice video BTW. Very clever :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

KeR

Ok even though I started this.....I do believe that we landed on the Moon, I mean it's really stupid to say that we didn't. All the people that say we didn't use stupid excuses to justify themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Miran

This conversation makes me sick with disgust due to the lack of basic scientific understanding amongst adults. No, it isn't stupidity - it's laziness and entertainment. It is "more fun" to believe the crap FOX networks, notorious for backing horribly warped documentaries, throws at you then believing the plain bloody truth. It is obvious to anyone, not just those with a degree in Astrophysics, that NASA did land on the moon - UTTERLY OBVIOUS. Your skeptisism is better spent questioning whether president Bush's IQ is 10 or 11 (I say 10).

If so called "skeptics" were so skeptical - they would be very skeptical about Fox's broadcast but they aren't. Real skeptics are scientists, who are skeptical about scientific claims AND this B.S. pseudoscience. Science and skepticism are intertwined, whereas paranoia and idiocy are too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Miran

Oh and also, the main reason NASA won't reply is because the evidence speaks for itself and because they are above this pseudoscience crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DrunkenMaster

For any non-believers. Just go to the moon. Find the American flag and the footprints and there you have it. If the Van Allen Belt radiation kills you then you deserve it.

BTW somewhre on the NASA site there is a full fleged article on the VA Belts with radiation doses etc. all the medical and physics info needed to prove it can be done.

If it was filmed on a "sound stage" find one person who worked there with pictures/video that they worked on the set. Its funny, the FOX episode said they worked on a sound stage somewhere which is the whole basis for the conspiracy but they have yet to find anyone who worked there. Prove THAT one. I don't remember anyone mentioning that yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Miran

Or the thousands of pounds of moonrock brought back which is different from any other rock on earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironman273

And besides, I saw the movie Apollo 13 and they almost made it to the moon!!!! If they could make it that far then they could land too!!!! I saw the movie!!! Tom Hanks would never lie to me!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironman273

Seriously, though, one claim of the "skeptics" is that the fire that killed the Apollo 1 astronauts on the launch pad was not an accident. They claim the astronauts were going to come out with this "secret" that everything was staged and so they were murdered by our government in order to keep them quiet.

It's these type of asinine comments that turns them from "poorly informed idiots" to "raging alarmist a$$holes"

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.