NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah I don't buy the hoax or the tin-foil hat people ruminations myself.

Just wondering if anyone here believes in the conspiracy theory version of the moon landings, that it was a hoax perpetrated by NASA and the American government.

Something interesting I read on one of Wikipedia's pages about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations), apparently in Cuba and a few other countries it is taught in schools that it was faked, which is obviously both funny and sad. Seems similar to the 9/11 tin-foil hat people who use the hoax accusations as an excuse to bath the ebil US and holocaust denial blaming it on the Jews.

Another question: what conspiracy theories are there that don't have any ideological conflicts contributing to their motivation or popularity?

And for the record I don't believe them and think anyone who does and is over 15 and with access to the internet is quite the deluded fool.

Poll coming...

You can point a laser at the mirrors left on the moon and get a signal back.

The only proper response to the whole moon landing was hoaxed schtick is Buzz Aldrin's.

The moon landings never happened

it was all a plot by our evil capitalistic government to control the brainless swarms of conformists consumerist americans to hate the peace loving communistic anti-imperialist soviets.

also cocks

I predict this thread will only be interesting if someone comes in and thinks the landings were faked.

I predict this thread will only be interesting if someone comes in and thinks the landings were faked.

I am sincerely convinced they didnt happen.

I'm not faking this.:fluffle:

Just wondering if anyone here believes in the conspiracy theory version of the moon landings, that it was a hoax perpetrated by NASA and the American government.

Something interesting I read on one of Wikipedia's pages about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations), apparently in Cuba and a few other countries it is taught in schools that it was faked, which is obviously both funny and sad. Seems similar to the 9/11 tin-foil hat people who use the hoax accusations as an excuse to bath the ebil US and holocaust denial blaming it on the Jews.

Another question: what conspiracy theories are there that don't have any ideological conflicts contributing to their motivation or popularity?

And for the record I don't believe them and think anyone who does and is over 15 and with access to the internet is quite the deluded fool.

Poll coming...

Chupacabra?

I wouldn't say it's humanity's greatest achievement, but it did happen.

I predict this thread will only be interesting if someone comes in and thinks the landings were faked.

The moon landings were faked. In fact the moon is fake. The Earth is flat, just as God intended. And we are the center of the universe. Jesus, get your act together peoples.

I wouldn't say it's humanity's greatest achievement, but it did happen.

It should be our greatest achievement, we haven't ruined the place yet :).

The moon landings never happened

it was all a plot by our evil capitalistic government to control the brainless swarms of conformists consumerist americans to hate the peace loving communistic anti-imperialist soviets.

also cocks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society

The moon landings were faked. In fact the moon is fake. The Earth is flat, just as God intended. And we are the center of the universe. Jesus, get your act together peoples.

I beg to differ.

As a side note, the Apollo program is the greatest objective acheivement of mankind. Next comes Mars, and then faster than light speed travel.

The Russians did it first. We just launched our secret Space Marines to kill the Cosmonauts before they left the surface. Yeah.

As a side note, the Apollo program is the greatest objective acheivement of mankind. Next comes Mars, and then faster than light speed travel.
I would say that most of the space telescopes and probes are bigger achievements than sending men to the moon. I mean, we've learned so much more about the universe through these missions than through the moon missions. Hell, I think that the knowledge we've gained since the moon landing is a bigger achievement than the moon landing.

Also, we won't learn anything from sending men to Mars that we won't learn sending robots there, so the cost isn't worth it.

I beg to differ.

As a side note, the Apollo program is the greatest objective acheivement of mankind. Next comes Mars, and then faster than light speed travel.

But that is impossible isn't it? And not like "going to the Moon is impossible" in 1900 but like alchemy is impossible.

Chupacabra?

There is a Chupacabra conspiracy? Is the Mexican government involved?

But that is impossible isn't it? And not like "going to the Moon is impossible" in 1900 but like alchemy is impossible.

Nothing is impossible. We just haven't figured out how to do certain things yet.

But that is impossible isn't it? And not like "going to the Moon is impossible" in 1900 but like alchemy is impossible.
Warp drive would work with a negative energy density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Oh and also, alchemy isn't impossible, it's called nuclear physics.

There is more to exploration then pictures and measurments.
But pictures and measurements are currently the most economical way to learn anything. Besides, as I said, we're not going to learn anything from sending people to Mars that we can't learn from sending robots there.

I would say that most of the space telescopes and probes are bigger achievements than sending men to the moon. I mean, we've learned so much more about the universe through these missions than through the moon missions. Hell, I think that the knowledge we've gained since the moon landing is a bigger achievement than the moon landing.

Also, we won't learn anything from sending men to Mars that we won't learn sending robots there, so the cost isn't worth it.

There is more to exploration then pictures and measurments.

Of course they were faked. Consider:
The Soviets had beaten the Americans in everything else, first satellite, first animal in space, and first human in space. All of a sudden, the Americans triumph. What a great way to "win" the space race.
The radiation of the Van Allen belts will kill anyone who crosses them. All missions that haven't claimed to go to the moon never go more than several hundred miles above the earth. The moon is 240,000 miles away.
The moon landing occurred in the second half of 1969, less than six months away from the end of the decade. JFK had said man would walk on the moon by 1970, and NASA was getting closer to its deadline. It apparently ran out of time.
Finally, there are plenty of problems with the pictures, such as IDs on the prop rocks. A good site that explains that all is here (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html).

I am playing devil's advocate. But, if you wish to argue against me, I will be happy to play along.

the moon landing was a hoax. I do believe we later did the apollo missions, but I think the original moon landing was staged.

If we wanted to be economical, we wouldn't build probes like we do. What actual value is there in having pictures of Pluto (poor, poor Pluto).
Taking pictures (usually in more than just visual wavelengths) or spectra from various objects in our solar system can tell us a lot about how the solar system formed and what makes it up. While sending a probe to Pluto may seem rather arbitrary, if you're going to send a probe to a Kuiper belt object, why not that one?

But pictures and measurements are currently the most economical way to learn anything. Besides, as I said, we're not going to learn anything from sending people to Mars that we can't learn from sending robots there.

If we wanted to be economical, we wouldn't build probes like we do. What actual value is there in having pictures of Pluto (poor, poor Pluto).

Finally, there are plenty of problems with the pictures, such as IDs on the prop rocks. A good site that explains that all is here (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html).

I am playing devil's advocate. But, if you wish to argue against me, I will be happy to play along.


Oh jebus, I gagged at some of the bad science on that page. It was TERRIBLE.

*puking emoticon*

Greatest Achivement since the discovery that the moon is in fact not made out of swiss chesse

I would say that most of the space telescopes and probes are bigger achievements than sending men to the moon. I mean, we've learned so much more about the universe through these missions than through the moon missions. Hell, I think that the knowledge we've gained since the moon landing is a bigger achievement than the moon landing.

Also, we won't learn anything from sending men to Mars that we won't learn sending robots there, so the cost isn't worth it.

Of course we will learn something. We will learn how to send people to other planets.

There is a Chupacabra conspiracy? Is the Mexican government involved?

No I thought that it's mere existence could be considered a Conspiracy....

actually, now that you mention it...I remember watching something on the Discovery Channel about the Chupacabra being an American government Conspiracy...apparently it was created in a laboratory in Puerto Rico during the Second World War as a weapon to be used against Japanese soldiers in the dense jungles of South East Asia, and the Pacific...After the war the project was abandoned and the Chupacabra subjects escaped...or something like that...

Real. Are you kidding? I don't even know why you need to ask.

"Bill Kaysing was a librarian/writer of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

However, only 2 years later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he made the following famous speech. 'I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.' It was just eight years later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe."

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Took this from a post by someone who said the moon landing was faked. Honestly people, radation isn't that hard to block, just get a dense material. And besides, micro meteors could hardly do anything except chip the extremly thick reinforced glass windows, now if they had been hit by an actual meteor, well, it would've shut the spaceprogram down entirley.

Taking pictures (usually in more than just visual wavelengths) or spectra from various objects in our solar system can tell us a lot about how the solar system formed and what makes it up. While sending a probe to Pluto may seem rather arbitrary, if you're going to send a probe to a Kuiper belt object, why not that one?

We can already tell that from earthbound instruments and orbiting sats.

One of the Apollo astronauts (Harrison Schmitt, IIRC) was asked why humans should go to the moon and mars. He said something along the lines of "men can put the moon/mars into a prospective that other men can relate to". I'm sure I didn't get the phrasing right, but his point is a valid one, I think. Exploration is more then instruments and measurements and probes. Exploration is also about the human factor.

Either way, I firmly believe that all these probes are just the forefront of what will happen with space exploration. Eventually, we will land, then live, on most of the solid planets. Earth is cool and all, but the future of Humanity is out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society

The earth isn't flat -- that's 2-dimensional.

...THE EARTH IS ONE-DIMENSIONAL.:eek:

One of our proudest achievements. Conspiracy theorists are either
A) Liars out to make a buck
B) Delusional idiots
C) Paid agents of the US government out to discredit A) and B).

One of our proudest achievements. Conspiracy theorists are either
A) Liars out to make a buck
B) Delusional idiots
C) Paid agents of the US government out to discredit A) and B).

Best
Explination
Ever

But pictures and measurements are currently the most economical way to learn anything. Besides, as I said, we're not going to learn anything from sending people to Mars that we can't learn from sending robots there.

While it's true that it makes the most immediate economic sense to stick to unmanned missions, I would say that some of our best achievements are when we are pushed to our very limits and exploring, in person, another planet, a moon or an asteroid, would be the height of such an endeavor.

Oh, and, before we hit up Mars, we should probably set our sights on creating a medium duration moon base. The astronomical advances that could be gained from something like that, alone, would make it worth, imo.

While it's true that it makes the most immediate economic sense to stick to unmanned missions, I would say that some of our best achievements are when we are pushed to our very limits and exploring, in person, another planet, a moon or an asteroid, would be the height of such an endeavor.

Oh, and, before we hit up Mars, we should probably set our sights on creating a medium duration moon base. The astronomical advances that could be gained from something like that, alone, would make it worth, imo.

You see, if we can put a man on another planet and not just our moon, I gaurentee it'll give a big boost to interest in the space program, and as a big plus, it also shows that we know how the technology to possibly send man to explore the solar system, not just our own backyard. (The moon and Earth's orbit)

Isn't it funny how every single person who has ever argued that the moon landing was faked is unaware that there were five others?

One of our proudest achievements. Conspiracy theorists are either
A) Liars out to make a buck
B) Delusional idiots
C) Paid agents of the US government out to discredit A) and B).

Reminds me of something I wrote once.

The government does not cover up anything. The government does not need to cover up anything. They tell the populace exactly what happened and rely on the fact that no one believes them.

One of our proudest achievements. Conspiracy theorists are either
A) Liars out to make a buck
B) Delusional idiots
C) Paid agents of the US government out to discredit A) and B).

You're a conspiracy theorist!

Honestly people, radation isn't that hard to block, just get a dense material.

Like the skulls of various conspiracy theorists and racists? :p

I've never thought it was a hoax. Now.. what all they could be doing out there or plan to do.. is open. I haven't ever looked for any ideas, and I'm more interested in what is going on here on earth. Although conspiracies of alien cover-ups do interest me. But people who get into the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory are boring(j/k).. they are probably just ole timers. There are much better ones out there though. :p

Hegelian Dialectic http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm -- absolute idea (http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/hegelian_dialectic_files/image001.gif) --- example (http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/hegelian_dialectic_files/image003.gif)

---> America's Secret Establishment (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9707/Americas-Secret-Establishment-An-Introduction-to-Skull-and-Bones-by-Antony-Sutton)

You see, if we can put a man on another planet and not just our moon, I gaurentee it'll give a big boost to interest in the space program, and as a big plus, it also shows that we know how the technology to possibly send man to explore the solar system, not just our own backyard. (The moon and Earth's orbit)

If we have people staying for six to eight months at a time on the moon, I assure you, it will stir up some interest. =P

But even if it doesn't...I want my moon colony that rebels against Earth, god dammit!

Isn't it funny how every single person who has ever argued that the moon landing was faked is unaware that there were five others?

Probably because they are not old enough to remember that or smart enough to read up on the missions.

We can already tell that from earthbound instruments and orbiting sats.

One of the Apollo astronauts (Harrison Schmitt, IIRC) was asked why humans should go to the moon and mars. He said something along the lines of "men can put the moon/mars into a prospective that other men can relate to". I'm sure I didn't get the phrasing right, but his point is a valid one, I think. Exploration is more then instruments and measurements and probes. Exploration is also about the human factor.

Either way, I firmly believe that all these probes are just the forefront of what will happen with space exploration. Eventually, we will land, then live, on most of the solid planets. Earth is cool and all, but the future of Humanity is out there.

I'll agree with you there. I'm studying geology, and comparing the work I'd be able to do based on a mars rover, and the work I'd be able to do actually wandering around a crater/outcrop... well, there isn't really any comparison. Working with rovers is useful, but to really get the hang of an area one needs to be there.

I would say that most of the space telescopes and probes are bigger achievements than sending men to the moon. I mean, we've learned so much more about the universe through these missions than through the moon missions. Hell, I think that the knowledge we've gained since the moon landing is a bigger achievement than the moon landing.

Also, we won't learn anything from sending men to Mars that we won't learn sending robots there, so the cost isn't worth it.Will we learn anything about how to get people to Mars by sending robots to Mars?

Just saying, as I am sure that there are plenty of people who would love to live there.

Oh jebus, I gagged at some of the bad science on that page. It was TERRIBLE.

*puking emoticon*
My favorite part about this site is that while it claims it is ridiculous an event documented by NASA that involved going 240,000 miles in space is impossible, an event involving extraterrestrials documented by someone's neighbor who had a video camera that involved the travelers going 240,000 light-years was not only possible, but probable.

I think we actually did land on the moon.

But that is impossible isn't it?
Superluminal Speeds: we have no effing idea whether we can or can't. We do know that it is physically impossible to go faster than the speed of light using traditional methods of propulsion (under our current physical model of the universe, which is, for all intents and purposes, pretty damn accurate) because: 1. It requires a progressively higher amount of energy to accelerate as you approach the speed of light, and requires an infinite amount to get there; and 2. You cannot accelerate something without time, and as you get closer to the speed of light, any object with mass has time slow down, and once you get there time stops. These facts are proven through actual measurements, except the time part at the speed of light, which is an extrapolation of experimental data. Using other methods is something not feasible for us to test, so we cannot know for sure if it is possible.

Alchemy: changing the elemental makeup is extremely hard but feasible, just not economically feasible. As for immortality... who knows? Do I look like a biologist/physician/gerontologist to you?

Wouldn't it be possible to take a picture of the original moon landing site. I do believe we left shit there. So camera + telescope = proof?

Or will people just say it is shopped? But then you could follow it up with directions on how to find it.

It can be fake if it wants to, since the moon landing has yet to affect my life in any noticeable way.

Of course they were faked. ............... A good site that explains that all is here (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html).



Well, that settles it then, eh?

I mean, if it is on the Internet, then it certainly must be true.

:rolleyes:

What did the USA give to the USSR to getr away with it, if it was a hoax huh?

The USSR would never have let the US get away with saying they landed on the moon if they didn't.

"Bill Kaysing was a librarian/writer of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

However, only 2 years later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he made the following famous speech. 'I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.' It was just eight years later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe."

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Took this from a post by someone who said the moon landing was faked. Honestly people, radation isn't that hard to block, just get a dense material. And besides, micro meteors could hardly do anything except chip the extremly thick reinforced glass windows, now if they had been hit by an actual meteor, well, it would've shut the spaceprogram down entirley.

Especially when it's alpha or beta radiation, which can be blocked with a few centimeters of foil and plastic.

Seriously people, trying to block that radiation with several feet of lead would have ended up doing more damage to the astronauts than what they actually used.

I don't beleive in any conspiracy except two:

1.Monica Lewinsky scandal was set up to draw the media away from the bombings that were going on a short while later.

2.Reagan set up the release of the hostages so it wouldn't happen until after the end of Carter's term so he wouldn't win the election.

Especially when it's alpha or beta radiation, which can be blocked with a few centimeters of foil and plastic.
This is why I wear a tin-foil hat. I encourage everyone else to do the same; there are instructions here (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/).

......... the earth is also flat, and being held aloft by Atlas.

It was, anyway, until Atlas shrugged.

Ayn Rand for Pres!

Even dead, she is better than anything currently offered.

:cool:

The discovery of America was a hoax by the Spanish. All of us in North America are actually living in secret compounds in Spain oblivious to all of this.

Also the heliocentric view of the solar system is a hoax by Galileo, everything actually revolves around the earth; the earth is also flat, and being held aloft by Atlas.

Alchemy: changing the elemental makeup is extremely hard but feasible, just not economically feasible.

Changing the elemental makeup of an element is naturally occuring, and the principle behind which nuclear power plants work.

If it was a hoax and NASA has been able to maintain it covered, even though at one point it involved millions of people and consumed about one third of the US economy, wouldn't that count as one of man's greatest achievements anyway?

Every argument against it being real has been thoroughly debunked. Yet this girl in my History class last year insisted it was faked. Someone should recreate what happened with all the technology of then and try it again just to prove it happened.

'Good luck, Mr. Gorsky'

If it was a hoax and NASA has been able to maintain it covered, even though at one point it involved millions of people and consumed about one third of the US economy, wouldn't that count as one of man's greatest achievements anyway?

True.

And considering the skill required for faking a moon landing, and then the obvious lack behind trying to make the President look honest only five years later, I'd have to say that the former didn't happen.

C) Paid agents of the US government out to discredit A) and B).

Ah yes, the agent provocateur. Always a classic role.

Frankly, with all that we can do, I have a hard time believing that the moon landings didn't happen, and can't help but chortle mightily at anyone who seriously believes they were faked.

'Good luck, Mr. Gorsky'

Urban Legend.

Every argument against it being real has been thoroughly debunked. Yet this girl in my History class last year insisted it was faked. Someone should recreate what happened with all the technology of then and try it again just to prove it happened.

That would be kind of insulting, to "need" to prove it.

But pictures and measurements are currently the most economical way to learn anything. Besides, as I said, we're not going to learn anything from sending people to Mars that we can't learn from sending robots there.

Yes we can.

We can learn what it feels like to be fucking standing on MARS!

that's worth it.

Yes we can.

We can learn what it feels like to be fucking standing on MARS!

that's worth it.

Also there would obviously be a lot of learning involved in working out how to send people on such long-term missions.

Its about what we ACHIEVED AND LEARNED.

In which case It IS Mankind's greatest achievement.

(So far.)

i am a lettuce.


from outta space.

Its about what we ACHIEVED
Which was putting a man on the moon.

AND LEARNED.
Which was nothing.

In which case It IS Mankind's greatest achievement.

I'd vote for eliminating smallpox.

Which was nothing.

Wait... Did you just say we learnt nothing by going to the moon?

We landed on the moon of course!

Wait... Did you just say we learnt nothing by going to the moon?

If we had gone, we would have learned it is made of cheese.

Something interesting I read on one of Wikipedia's pages about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations), apparently in Cuba and a few other countries it is taught in schools that it was faked, which is obviously both funny and sad.

A more credible source? The source on wiki for these allegation is mr.James Edward Oberg, aka Jim Oberg (see wiki); he looks quite discredited by NASA.

"James Oberg, an American journalist who writes about space (and has worked for NASA's space shuttle program), estimates that "perhaps 10 percent of the population, and up to twice as large in specific demographic groups" believe in the hoax or have some doubts about the Apollo program.[16] "It’s not just a few crackpots and their new books and Internet conspiracy sites," Oberg said in 1999. "There are entire subcultures within the U.S., and substantial cultures around the world, that strongly believe the landing was faked. I’m told that this is official dogma still taught in schools in Cuba, plus wherever else Cuban teachers have been sent (such as Sandinista [sic] Nicaragua and Angola)."[17]" (wiki about moon hoax theories)

"He was approached by NASA to write a rebuttal of claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked, but it is not clear that the manuscript was ever started, and NASA promptly announced their intention not to publish the book soon after their announcement that they had commissioned it. However, Oberg has said that he intends to pursue the project." (wiki about J.Oberg)


Anyway, no. The moon landings were real. Proof? Well, the Soviets had already sent stuff (unmanned probes) on the Moon, and were able to transmit and receive radio signals from them, and use telemetry. Of course, they would have been able to discover a moon hoax with radar or telemetry, and, if they'd discovered it, they would have had a huge propaganda benefit by revealing the hoax. They didn't, hence moon landings are real.

having already been an adult, and watching the live play by play as it was happening, and considering the vested motivations and who has those motivations, for wanting people to believe it might have been a hoax, i really find the pretention that it might have been, on the extremely low end of probablitity. somewhere in the same general area as a flat earth.

=^^=
.../\...

i am a lettuce.


from outta space.

As long as you're not a cabbage.

don't know, don't care.


but it was pretty funny when i saw the video of Buzz Aldaren punching this guy who was following him around trying to get him to answer his simple yes or no question about it.
the punch adds doubt to the landing.

what a jerk.
just answer this damn question.
fartknocker

The moon landings were a hoax.... except for one tiny piece of info everyone has missed

The USSR (the west's sworn enemy) sent unmanned rovers to the moon... one of these came across an apollo site exactly where the USA said it was.

Do you really believe the russians would have kept quiet about it given the geo-political situation of the time? :rolleyes:

Unless they were in on the conspiracy too :eek:

Which means not only were all the russkie scientists/leaders in on the conspiracy, all the NASA guys must have been in on it plus the government, plus all the other science guys who tracked the moon shots from here to there and back, which taken to the extreme means that conspiracy nuts were the only people on the planet not in on the conspiracy, and the medical profession have a word for that: Paranoia :p

El-presidente Boris

Do you really believe the russians would have kept quiet about it given the geo-political situation of the time? :rolleyes:

Unless they were in on the conspiracy too :eek:

Which means not only were all the russkie scientists/leaders in on the conspiracy, all the NASA guys must have been in on it plus the government, plus all the other science guys who tracked the moon shots from here to there and back, which taken to the extreme means that conspiracy nuts were the only people on the planet not in on the conspiracy, and the medical profession have a word for that: Paranoia :p

El-presidente Boris



Why would the Russians want to threaten the status quo?
With the illusion (and I do mean illusion despite what other non-sense may be in this post of mine) of trying to knock each other out, both the US & SU were just fine with the status quo. The two remaining imperialist powers in the world. What better way to remain in power than not threaten the other one.
Condaleeza Rice is even quoted at least one time stating that the SU had been fine with the status quo at least since 1980 or so (early 80s).

So, I don't see it too much a stretch to say a few high level officials of SU would be in on some sort of conspiracy (which I do not actually believe exists - the conspiracy. i do think the moonlanding happened)

As for all these science guys tracking the moonlanding at nasa hq.
They do not all have to be in on any conspiracy.
All they were doing was sitting in front of a bunch of screens watching projected angles and distances, etc...
They only needed to believe what they saw on their screens was true.
Something that could have been pre-programmed to show on their computer screens.

Again, I'm not saying I believe in the moon-landing conspiracy,
just stating that such a conspiracy would not need all that many people as you projected above.

Good grief.

We can't even keep our military plans off of the front page of the New York Times, yet some fools think that NASA can keep something this secret for this long?

Chylde Please.

I think it was real.

Then again, Americans....

Greatest Achivement since the discovery that the moon is in fact not made out of swiss chesse
It's made of Wensleydale.

don't know, don't care.


but it was pretty funny when i saw the video of Buzz Aldaren punching this guy who was following him around trying to get him to answer his simple yes or no question about it.
the punch adds doubt to the landing.

what a jerk.
just answer this damn question.
fartknocker

A: The guy was shouting at him.
B: He was basically calling him a lier
C: He was also telling Buzz Aldrin that what may have been the greatest achievement of his life never happened.

in short, the guy deserved it.
[QUOTE=CthulhuFhtagn;13119355]Which was putting a man on the moon.

Which was nothing.

If we hadn't gone to the moon, we wouldn't have this photograph. http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/Earthrise.jpg
No image could have better conveyed how precious this little ball of rock we all live on is, and how small our nations and armies look like when viewed from the proper perspective.

Which was putting a man on the moon.

Which was nothing.


I suppose Marco Polo didn't learn squat either. Neither did Columbus. Or all those explorers throughout history.

A: The guy was shouting at him.
B: He was basically calling him a lier
C: He was also telling Buzz Aldrin that what may have been the greatest achievement of his life never happened.

in short, the guy deserved it.

If we hadn't gone to the moon, we wouldn't have this photograph. http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/Earthrise.jpg
No image could have better conveyed how precious this little ball of rock we all live on is, and how small our nations and armies look like when viewed from the proper perspective.


ha.
why not just answer his questions?
isn't the greatest achievement in one's life their children?

cgi?
haha

the only rock we can live on,
yet we still have to pay rent to some master to be allowed

ha.
why not just answer his questions?
isn't the greatest achievement in one's life their children?

cgi

the only rock we can live on,
yet we still have to pay rent to some master to be allowed

Are you high?

Are you high?

haha
thanks.
i wish.
maybe next year

Greatest Achivement since the discovery that the moon is in fact not made out of swiss chesseIt's made of Wensleydale.
Jarlsberg. Didn'tcha see the craters?
But even if it doesn't...I want my moon colony that rebels against Earth, god dammit!
"But Man, we can throw rocks at Terra. We will!"

I suppose Marco Polo didn't learn squat either. Neither did Columbus. Or all those explorers throughout history.

Neither Marco Polo nor Columbus were preceded by unmanned missions that collected information. And Marco Polo never actually did the travels he claimed he did. And Columbus didn't really learn much either.

Neither Marco Polo nor Columbus were preceded by unmanned missions that collected information. And Marco Polo never actually did the travels he claimed he did. And Columbus didn't really learn much either.

Marco Polo may not have gone everywhere he said he did, but he certainly did do a lot more traveling to places unknown or only vaguely known by Europe at the time. Columbus did the same, even if he did screw up where he really ended up.

As for unmanned missions, lets take it a few steps back. Sputnik. Lets say the Russians never sent a manned mission to space. Nobody ever did. They all thought going to space was suicide.

Where would that leave us? Without a lot of alloys used today, and numerous advancements in plastics and zero-g materials behavior that were applied to modern manufacturing techniques.

It's not the moon itself that had learning merit for manned missions. It's the technical challenge of a manned mission itself. Lessons learned there are directly applicable for any long distance manned space missions from colonization efforts to asteroid mining.

No image could have better conveyed how precious this little ball of rock we all live on is, and how small our nations and armies look like when viewed from the proper perspective.
Is that a challenge? *Phones President about use of nuclear weapons.*

Marco Polo may not have gone everywhere he said he did, but he certainly did do a lot more traveling to places unknown or only vaguely known by Europe at the time. Columbus did the same, even if he did screw up where he really ended up.

As for unmanned missions, lets take it a few steps back. Sputnik. Lets say the Russians never sent a manned mission to space. Nobody ever did. They all thought going to space was suicide.

Where would that leave us? Without a lot of alloys used today, and numerous advancements in plastics and zero-g materials behavior that were applied to modern manufacturing techniques.

It's not the moon itself that had learning merit for manned missions. It's the technical challenge of a manned mission itself. Lessons learned there are directly applicable for any long distance manned space missions from colonization efforts to asteroid mining.Don't forget computers. The machines on the Apollo ships were fucking amazing for their time. We would be considerable further back without them. While it is hard to say how far back we would be without the innovations NASA forced, we would be back at least half a decade, if not more. I mean it was the third largest funder of computer research, and had that position throughout the space race.

Yeah I don't buy the hoax or the tin-foil hat people ruminations myself.

Lol.

Were th moon landings fake?
Maybe, I don't know. Were the radio broadcasts and pictures fake? Evidence suggests yes. Does that mean the whole thing was fake? Not neccesarily. Maybe. My guess; either the whole thing was shopped to meet JFKs campaign promises and beat the threat of embarassment of being beaten by the second world, or the whole thing was shopped because the actual landing would have had insufficient evidence to quench public thirst for the monumental event. Maybe they didn't actually land on the moon and instead just did a manned space mission. Who knows? More importantly. who cares? It is a monumentally insignificant and overrated incident.

Were the radio broadcasts and pictures fake? Evidence suggests yes.

What evidence would that be?

That evidence.

Over there ->
>.>

What evidence would that be?
I think he meant the lack of stars. That's a pretty common one. Some things about that: they were all taken in daylight with the sun shining down on everything; the film was meant to take pictures of the surface of the moon, not the stars from the moon; they were there to take pictures of the moon, gorramit!

Another fav of conspiracy buffs is the waving flag. It was a piece of cloth with a rod through the top holding it up. When they plant it into the ground and hold it they move it a little and the cloth swings with the inertia.

I think he meant the lack of stars. That's a pretty common one. Some things about that: they were all taken in daylight with the sun shining down on everything; the film was meant to take pictures of the surface of the moon, not the stars from the moon; they were there to take pictures of the moon, gorramit!

Another fav of conspiracy buffs is the waving flag. It was a piece of cloth with a rod through the top holding it up. When they plant it into the ground and hold it they move it a little and the cloth swings with the inertia.

Yeah, I know, I was hoping he or she would write up a list but I can could debunk it like BAM BAM BAM, but alas I can not. My impulse is to think a 9/11 conspiracy thread would be more fun debate wise, but those sort of truthers are so infuriatingly stubborn and delusional it would probably end up a net loss.