Moon landing

[year of the roo]

OK, say they did fake the moon landing (even though I stand by my original post that there is no doubt that it was real), who cares? It changes nothing.

g.g. it seems you have invested an enormous amount of time into this topic, what exactly do you hope to gain out of it? Your time would be better spent searching the Southern skies for UFO's.

 

[Marklar_33]

I am also "leaning" towards fake, with a still open mind, not that Im gonna spend hours researching it. I can take it or leave it

Just dont throw me in with g.g. Man, hes gone insane with this


At least he's passionate!

 

[exe ex machina]

OK, say they did fake the moon landing (even though I stand by my original post that there is no doubt that it was real), who cares? It changes nothing.

g.g. it seems you have invested an enormous amount of time into this topic, what exactly do you hope to gain out of it? Your time would be better spent searching the Southern skies for UFO's.

Who cares? It changes nothing? It's a monumental hoax that cheapens history, the achievments of mankind, etc. And how does it change nothing?

I am also "leaning" towards fake, with a still open mind, not that Im gonna spend hours researching it. I can take it or leave it

Just dont throw me in with g.g. Man, hes gone insane with this

At least he's passionate!

We're all a little insane anyway. But regarding this, it's just if you're gonna do anything (post a theory and argue it) don't do anything half-assed.

 

[ssreid]

Can someone tell me why there has never been another moon landing with all the technology we have?

 

[crownie]

Can someone tell me why there has never been another moon landing with all the technology we have?

apparantly theres not enough money in the world today to do one

 

[Ghostwriter]

I'm not gonna jump in with G.G. but it would be interesting to hear a body language expert give an appraisal of the press conference, from my limited knowledge they weren't exactly 'over the moon' about their moon landing.
My next question is the simple one of an orbiter circling the moon, a lander, then the lander leaving the moon and connecting with the orbiter, the mathematics involved would be astounding even today, the computer would struggle with it, do it once I will give it to them do it multiple times and I think they are stretching my trust, then not do it ever again with modern technology we have, even when the Cassini probe landed on Titan, one of Saturns moons in 2005, the control centre went ballistic, to then get that probe back up to the Cassini module would be a little difficult I would imagine, yet we did it in 1969 multiple times.
Then again we were told Iraq had chemical/nuclear weapons.

 

[Killer eagle]

I'm not gonna jump in with G.G. but it would be interesting to hear a body language expert give an appraisal of the press conference, from my limited knowledge they weren't exactly 'over the moon' about their moon landing.
My next question is the simple one of an orbiter circling the moon, a lander, then the lander leaving the moon and connecting with the orbiter, the mathematics involved would be astounding even today, the computer would struggle with it, do it once I will give it to them do it multiple times and I think they are stretching my trust, then not do it ever again with modern technology we have, even when the Cassini probe landed on Titan, one of Saturns moons in 2005, the control centre went ballistic, to then get that probe back up to the Cassini module would be a little difficult I would imagine, yet we did it in 1969 multiple times.
Then again we were told Iraq had chemical/nuclear weapons.

Ever been on a long holiday (but in zero gravity), then taken a 24 hour long flight back (or however long it was) then you land and talk to a bunch of reporters. You would be physically drained, and the adrenaline from landing would have worn off, so you wouldnt exactly be doing star jumps would you. It would be like jet lag but far worse.

And whats hard about a lander connecting to an orbiter? There are frequently trips to the space station, where the ship has to dock to the space station, and they never have any trouble with that. It would be no harder then connecting to the space station.

The Cassini probe was an unmanned probe, on a moon many many times further than earths moon, a totally different situation. Actually come to think of it, i reckon aircraft landings are fake to, its all a big conspiracy theory, the mathematics in landing a massive boeing 747 on a little runway is astronomical, even impossible. Oh hold on, weve been flying for over a century now.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Ever been on a long holiday (but in zero gravity), then taken a 24 hour long flight back (or however long it was) then you land and talk to a bunch of reporters. You would be physically drained, and the adrenaline from landing would have worn off, so you wouldnt exactly be doing star jumps would you. It would be like jet lag but far worse.

Been to the moon have you?

And whats hard about a lander connecting to an orbiter? There are frequently trips to the space station, where the ship has to dock to the space station, and they never have any trouble with that. It would be no harder then connecting to the space station.

You've obviously done it quite a bit then, as for connecting to the space station, I think a little thing called modern technology would help that one.

The Cassini probe was an unmanned probe, on a moon many many times further than earths moon, a totally different situation. Actually come to think of it, i reckon aircraft landings are fake to, its all a big conspiracy theory, the mathematics in landing a massive boeing 747 on a little runway is astronomical, even impossible. Oh hold on, weve been flying for over a century now.

Flying an aeroplane around Earth is a lot different than launching a probe from the moon and connecting it to an orbiter, give that a little bit of thought can you, I own a car that was built in 1967, the technology that was available then doesn't make it possible to launch from the moon and connect to an orbiter then 'fly' back to earth and land, a bit of rational thought goes a long way.

 

[HorseHead]

Can someone tell me why there has never been another moon landing with all the technology we have?

It's been done and there's nothing of interest there.

 

[Ed_Gein]

It's been done and there's nothing of interest there.

Well, no American flag anyway.

 

[Killer eagle]

Been to the moon have you?



Flying an aeroplane around Earth is a lot different than launching a probe from the moon and connecting it to an orbiter, give that a little bit of thought can you, I own a car that was built in 1967, the technology that was available then doesn't make it possible to launch from the moon and connect to an orbiter then 'fly' back to earth and land, a bit of rational thought goes a long way.

Actually, in 1962 the first satellite was sent into orbite.
1954 was the launch of the worlds first nuclear powered submarine.
The worlds first nuke was sometime in the mid 1940's as you remember.
In the 1960, there were actually quite a few computers about. To Quote from Answers.com (in the year 1960)
Some 2,000 electronic computers are delivered to U.S. business offices, universities, laboratories, and other buyers.
They had a laser cranking at 1960.

Technology was cranking during the 60's. Except it wasnt main stream technology in the sense of every man and his dog gets a bit. If they could launch a satellite into orbite many years before, they could fly planes, they could get to the moon. Remember, during the years of the space race, Both countrys where throwing every bit of available funding and man hours towards it.

 

[Dean3]

Can someone tell me why there has never been another moon landing with all the technology we have?

There were five or six manned missions to the moon subsequent to Apollo 11. How many more do you want?

 

[Higgs Boson]

Technology was cranking during the 60's. Except it wasnt main stream technology in the sense of every man and his dog gets a bit.

Agree.

And, to open a whole new can of conspiratorial worms, it'd be exactly the same today. Imagine what the US military have at the moment that they are keeping under wraps... it'd be some mindblowing stuff I would imagine.

 

[Roll Tide]

I know this thread has been beaten to death, but these videos should end all speculation of a moon landing hoax. If you watch all 5 and you are still convinced it didn't happen, you're living in denial.

[youtube]khDI2MsWSYc[/youtube]
[youtube]IrI3iQqTdns[/youtube]
[youtube]sBCRYTaE3ek[/youtube]
[youtube]mFIyhtu0QZ0[/youtube]
[youtube]_SRV7elUFjo[/youtube]

END. OF. THREAD.

 

[exe ex machina]

I've watched all those and it just continues to confirm the hoax.

It's a closed set clearly.

Also, a lot of those debunking videos/articles, all they focus on is descrediting the character, past, etc of people who have hoax theories. They play the man and not the ball. Instead of concentrating on the actual thing itself.

As for the portal videos....they're discrediting some of the wilder theories concerning this phenomenon. There are a lot of different theories by different people.

Now you can end the thread.

 

[Roll Tide]

I watched all those and it just continues to confirm the hoax.

It's a closed set clearly.

Now you can end the thread.

g.g., you truly are an intellectual lightweight. I would give you more proof, but, why bother?

 

[exe ex machina]

See, always playing the man, not the ball.

Haha, it's always funny when people use the "im more intelligent than you" tack. Last resort.

But, "lightweight", I like that. Keeping it simple, straightforward, supple, adaptable, like water. Yeah, lightweight is fine. Not saddled with baggage, rigid, etc.

Look, the portal thing is not proof man walked on the moon. It only disproves what those two said about that particular thing. There are people out there who were closer to NASA, or who have researched things more realistically than going on goose chases, with insurmountable evidence that NASA and these video debunkers DONT have an answer for and refuse to reply to.

See, the NASA side will only reply to things they can debunk, because a lot of people's theories are wild and silly. There is damning evidence there.

 

[rhino49]

I've watched all those and it just continues to confirm the hoax.

It's a closed set clearly.

Also, a lot of those debunking videos/articles, all they focus on is descrediting the character, past, etc of people who have hoax theories. They play the man and not the ball. Instead of concentrating on the actual thing itself.

As for the portal videos....they're discrediting some of the wilder theories concerning this phenomenon. There are a lot of different theories by different people.

Now you can end the thread.

are you forgetting the australian influence on the moon landing, from the movie 'the dish', is that fake as well?, if its a movie set then are you saying everybody involved in the 'production' have keep quiet all these years?

 

[Roll Tide]

For the dust to kick off the moon-buggy tyres in a perfectly parabolic manner without clouding, it would require a film studio totally devoid of air and devoid of gravity.

We can't even create those conditions today.

Case closed.

g.g., you did nothing to support your claim that such a studio could be created. There is more evidence in the moon walk footage of the dust coming off the ground in a paraboloic fashion without clouding (e.g. the astronaut falling down). So you can't deny that the astronauts were in a vacuum.

I admit that I have failed in trying to change your mind, but if several world-renowned geologists, astronomers, and physicists can't do it, then I sure as hell can't.

 

[exe ex machina]

are you forgetting the australian influence on the moon landing, from the movie 'the dish', is that fake as well?, if its a movie set then are you saying everybody involved in the 'production' have keep quiet all these years?

People use this same misconception for 9/11. That for something like either to be pulled off would require the inside-knowledge of hundreds of thousands of people. But that's wrong. Only the topmost staff/chiefs of staff would know. Everyone else under just follows orders....and importantly, they've all got little roles, little bits of involvement, tasks within an overall job that is spread around multitudes of people. Sometimes multitudes of people used for the one task.

Like, the airforce pilots and commanders told to stand down, to fly east and north on goose chases to allow strikes to occur, especially on the pentagon, where all those fighters were already positioned in Washington and Virginia. They're taking their orders, following them, including the commanders. There are much higher chains of command.

That principle still applies for the Moon missions. Including all the NASA people at their computers monitoring activity. Including the dish. As for WA, wasn't there some weird event that happened there? Certain people in WA were getting a whole other feed that was telling of the lies before it hurriedly switched? I've heard about that, haven't looked into that one.

 

[exe ex machina]

g.g., you did nothing to support your claim that such a studio could be created. There is more evidence in the moon walk footage of the dust coming off the ground in a paraboloic fashion without clouding. So you can't deny that the astronauts were in a vacuum.

I admit that I have failed in trying to change your mind, but if several world-renowned geologists, astronomers, and physicists can't do it, then I sure as hell can't.

I already answered about this parabolic effect in a previous post. Perhaps have a look back and let me know what you think?

Have a look back at some damning stuff in some of the photos, the latter ones I provided. Not everything is water-tight tho I admit. Me, others, and even scientists all throw up a whole bunch of things, people from both sides, and people from both sides end up debunking bits and pieces from each. But there are certain damning bits of evidence, that honestly NASA refuses to acknowledge, talk about, sometimes even destroying data (9/11). For instance, the buggy itself, initially NASA said they were inflatable tires. Documented. But it's been debunked since that it was IMPOSSIBLE for inflatable tires to be on the moon. NASA immediately changes their story, releases new documents saying how they weren't inflatable tires, putting a life-like model of the buggy on display withOUT inflatable tires etc.

There is stuff like this out there, you just have to sort thru the crackpot theories, the wrong theories, the guesses and assumptions, etc, made by both sides....NASA and the hoax-callers.

Both Moon and 9/11....it's a huge game, the guilty never going to admit it, and both sides trying their best to get on top. NASA/9-11 use dirty tactics, playing the man, or they actually hire people to make up crackpot theories so they can debunk them and add more mockery to "conspiracy theorists", they have their own scientists and experts obviously who can use formulas and science to make almost anything seem possible. Meanwhile the people trying to uncover it, you get the genuine ones, and all the crackpots who jump on board, and they're throwing darts at all the evidence, sometimes they hit the bulls-eye and NASA has no answer for it, they go silent for years as they either just ignore it or probably looking for ways to debunk it.

 

[Dipper]

I remember being at school & had never even heard of conspiracy theories & saying to people that I couldn't believe that they'd landed men on the moon & got them back at that time.

I'm not totally convinced either way now, saw a documentary where they put up all the 'flaws' in the argument for them having landed & they had an answer for them all.

Thing is there's a bit of s******ing on here against the 'conspiracy loonies' but for me the real loons are the people that blindly believe what governments & authority tell them.

Scepticism is a more than healthy trait that can be taken too far but quite often truth is wierder than anything.

Apparently there's a programme on TV over here this weekend claiming that Dr Kelly was murdered (The Dr Kelly who 'killed himself' over the whole weapons of mass destruction dossier in the Iraq war), no doubt people will see that as a conspiracy, at the time when they found his body I was sure that the security services had bumped him off.Remember that a number of doctors signed a letter & sent it to the Times or Telegraph saying that he couldn't have killed himself the way that he was meant to have died.

 

[FIGJAM]

I know this thread has been beaten to death, but these videos should end all speculation of a moon landing hoax. If you watch all 5 and you are still convinced it didn't happen, you're living in denial.

END. OF. THREAD.

I wish it was. They'll still argue!

The first vid finishes by claiming that the lack of clouding and parabolic movement of disturbed dust is one which the conspiracy theorists hate arguing. I've brought it up at least three times in this thread and not one CTist has even addressed it! Wonder why?!

I argue against 9/11 conspiracy theories all the time and the weight of evidence is at least as strong against the terrorist deniers.

I do agree that skepticism is healthy, but as I always say, it is vital to be skeptical of your skepticism, otherwise your conclusions will be based in desire for a specific result, as opposed to one based upon facts and evidence.

 

[exe ex machina]

I wish it was. They'll still argue!

The first vid finishes by claiming that the lack of clouding and parabolic movement of disturbed dust is one which the conspiracy theorists hate arguing. I've brought it up at least three times in this thread and not one CTist has even addressed it! Wonder why?!

I argue against 9/11 conspiracy theories all the time and the weight of evidence is at least as strong against the terrorist deniers.

I do agree that skepticism is healthy, but as I always say, it is vital to be skeptical of your skepticism, otherwise your conclusions will be based in desire for a specific result, as opposed to one based upon facts and evidence.

Actually I did address the parabolic effect with videos and some discussion on it. I don't claim to be an expert on it, but I put my personal thought into it and no one replied to me!

 

[Roll Tide]

g.g., if the moon rover theory is not good enough for you, tell me how the flag in the second video does not flap when the astronauts aren't touching it? The flag did not budge even when the astronauts passed by it! On Earth, this would have caused the flag to flap. This is even more evidence that the astronauts were in a vacuum on the moon. I know this won't change your mind about it, but I know whatever reply you have to it won't have any scientific evidence to make it a good argument.

Also, you conspiracy theorists are just as guilty of playing the man and not the ball. Did you see the part in video 3 where Bart Sibrel confronted Buzz Aldrin? Talk about playing the man and not the ball!