Man never walked on the moon.
Printable View
Man never walked on the moon.
Yeah, people have only jumped on the moon :)
No, they haven't. All the stuff you hear about, and those pictures...they are all lies.
Look at this:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
I'm convinced
Yeah, there are other things too, like:
Telescopes are fakes, there are pictures on the other end.
There are no elephants. They're all actors with costumes.
New Zealand doesn't exist. It's an illusion.
Maxorator, you didn't read the link.
Paper is not made of wood, it's made of plastic.
We are not breathing oxygen, it's all helium.
Clouds are actually spaceships.
Bread is made of sawdust.
Elvis is a cow who lives on moon.
There is no such metal like titanium, it's fake.
Pluto is a made of pure plutonium.
I was hit by a meteor when I was 6.
And yes, I read that stuff.
I know for sure that neil armstrong didn't walk on the moon, I can't confirm later attempts though. With the technology available today I can't see why it's not possible.
shut upQuote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
That's what I believe. No crappy web page can change that belief.Quote:
I know for sure that neil armstrong didn't walk on the moon, I can't confirm later attempts though. With the technology available today I can't see why it's not possible.
First I thought Queatrix made fun, but he really must be crazy to believe a little web page telling "Man never walked on the moon".
It may be true, whens the last time we sent some one up there? like ~10 years ago.
And when did the cold war end? 5 years before.
This is why I keep this link around. Not to fix the minds of the delusional fools -- to prevent anybody else from becoming one.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
>It may be true, whens the last time we sent some one up there? like ~10 years ago.
The US hasn't sent anyone to the moon in more than 30 years. What are you talking about.
Or am I missing the point of this thread? Is this where we add our retarded conspiracy theories that are backed up by some random assed website with bad science or some poorly edited video?
In that case, I'm going to get the whole "the twin towers were actually blown up - watch Loose Change and see!" thing out of the way.
Russians have been on moon. (several times)
Americans have been on moon. (several times)
Queatrix, you want to say all those rockets launched and then secretly landed somewhere and nobody noticed?
Shallowly dismissing hoax theories is not going to prove them wrong. Many people do wonder about some of the things discussed on that website and many books and documentaries since that day.
I, for one, prefer to believe that there's some strong points being made by those who don't believe man ever walked on moon. As I spectator watching from the sidelines (aka I wasn't there, what do I know) I prefer to take the stance of listening to both side arguments.
The problem is that NASA never addressed some of the stronger arguments.
As such, my answer instead of blind faith, is... I don't know if men have really walked on the moon.
>Queatrix, you want to say all those rockets launched and then secretly landed somewhere and nobody noticed?
Conspiracy theorists want to say a lot of things. I think a better question is why does he believe a website (yes, I've heard those claims before) and why is he trying to force his opinion on us at a programming forum.
I agree. I would like to think that man had indeed been on the moon, several times. But the fact is I have never been there so I hav no way to know for sure....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
> I, for one, prefer to believe that there's some strong points being made by those who don't believe man ever walked on moon
Please post them so they can be debunked, then.
> I prefer to take the stance of listening to both side arguments.
Being open-minded does no good when one side makes claims that ignore all logic and science.
This thread's just a troll, and should probably be closed, because nothing good's going to come out of it.
> But the fact is I have never been there so I hav no way to know for sure....
:rolleyes: I've never been to Houston, so I've got no way to know if anyone actually lives there.
Wow... I guess that means I am a figment of my own imagination :p
> Please post them so they can be debunked, then.
I don't have to. This whole issue doesn't take my sleep at night.
> Being open-minded does no good when one side makes claims that ignore all logic and science.
To be truthful, one side makes some claims that are in line with science and logic. Other claims are, I fully agree, totally ridiculous. Read both.
> I've never been to Houston, so I've got no way to know if anyone actually lives there.
They aren't comparable. And you know better than that, govtcheez. You speak of logic and science only to then ignore both completely with an argument like that.
I'm curious as to what really happened because my present knowledge of science tells me some of the things do make sense. However, I don't claim men never walked on the moon. I claim I don't know based on my current knowledge, because I never heard any rebutall to those arguments.
It's not open-minded. It's logic. The very fabric of human reasoning.
> I don't have to. This whole issue doesn't take my sleep at night.
You made the claim that there are good points that imply we didn't land on the moon. It's on you to post them, since you brought it up. I'm sure not going to waste my time tracking them down.
> They aren't comparable.
How aren't they? He said he doesn't know if we landed there because he had never been there. I stated the same thing he did. I've never been to Houston, so I don't know anything about it. Sure, there are all sorts of documents that show what it's like there and that there have indeed been people there, but I've never been there myself, so I'm not going to take them at their word. You can't just say "well, I haven't experienced it, so I don't know if it's true" when there are many people that have experienced it and shown what it is like. That's simply ignorant.
Would it make you feel better if I had said something like "I don't know if the earth is round, because I've never personally seen it from outer space" or "I think the earth might be hollow, just because I've never dug through the entire thing"?
> because I never heard any rebutall to those arguments.
Well then post the arguments, because I've never seen a "fact" that says we never landed on the moon that isn't easily debunked with a minimal amount of research.
> It's not open-minded. It's logic. The very fabric of human reasoning.
It's not logic, and it's not open-minded. It's intellectually dishonest.
> You made the claim that there are good points that imply we didn't land on the moon. It's on you to post them, since you brought it up. I'm sure not going to waste my time tracking them down.
read bellow.
> How aren't they? He said he doesn't know if we landed there because he had never been there. I stated the same thing he did. I've never been to Houston, so I don't know anything about it.
I believe he said it in concordance to my claim. So you can jump on me instead. They aren't comparable because there is no minimally sane attempt at rebuking the fact Houston exists. No one tried to disprove it or did it with any argument that would catch my attention. (Not to mention that will be in fact very hard to convince me otherwise since I lost a backpack there 4 years ago.)
I might have added the disclaimer, but didn't even cross my mind that you would be using such a stupid counter argument. So here it is the disclaimer now: I don't disbelieve things because I didn't witness them. I'm have more faith in human kind that that. However, I am entitled to doubt things when arguments against them make me think. One example:
- I doubted Iraq ever had nuclear weapons or the technology to make them based on UN inspectors reports.
- I started doubting they didn't have it after US evidence.
- I again started doubting they ever had it after the war.
> Would it make you feel better if I had said something like "I don't know if the earth is round, because I've never personally seen it from outer space" or "I think the earth might be hollow, just because I've never dug through the entire thing"?
It would have had been a better argument, yes. It's in tune to what is being discussed. It address knowledge that can be less empirically assumed and demands knowledge of science instead.
> It's not logic, and it's not open-minded. It's intellectually dishonest.
I know for a fact I'm not being dishonest. You do agree that it's something easy for me to know, don't you?
Ok... the things discussed there:
- No stars on the moon's sky (Ridiculous)
If you take a snapshot of the night's sky from earth with a lousy pocket camera that is much more advanced then the cameras used 40 years ago, chances are you won't see any stars either. Cameras aren't to this day that good at capturing small sources of light and especially when they are surrounded by complete darkness. So this is a ridiculous argument from what I know.
- Bright objects inside shadows (Ridiculous)
Somewhat related to the above. Probably we all have realized that shadows on a picture seem to always be much darker than what they are in real life. This also has to do with how a camera captures and imprints light (it basically does it against a black source). If a reflective object is inside a shadow and that object is reflecting light from another source, it's possible that it may appear much brighter than it was in real life. Actually this thing has a name in photograph circles. I wish I remembered.
- Resignations, deaths and whatevers of missing related personell (Outrageous!)
Absolutely ridiculous. Isn't even worth mentioning. It's actually offensive as it transforms an hoax theory into a conspiracy theory using those same ofensive methods of showing no evidence whatsoever. Just claims. However, I will waste my time with this: I once quit a job because they wouldn't give me a more ergonomical chair. On another job I was once a breath taking 5 seconds away of quitting because of stress.
- Shadow positions (Strong argument)
I cannot explain this with my current knowledge. Despite there being two light sources, it doesn't explain why objects a few meters apart cast shadows in different positions.
- Shadow lengths (Strong argument)
With the knowledge I have, the picture of the two astronauts staying just a couple a few feet away from each other with completely different shadow lenghts is simply not possible unless there is some light source close to them.
- The flapping flag (a bad case)
Because I don't know what to make of it. I don't have enough knowledge on this matter and the author doesn't give me hard evidence this wouldn't be possible. I can see a few reasons why it would be possible.I don't blindly believe the author because he said it. (As you see, I'm not intellectually dishonest). Which makes my common sense dictate I should stick to what is widely accepted. The flag flaps on the surface of the moon.
stopping for now. too big of a post altready.
I had a dream last night that I was watching Iraninan nuclear refinement facilities being blown up by american jets. Then I woke up with blood in my nose. This really happened, UNLIKE THOSE WASCALLY MOON LANDINGS!
Shadow angles have to do with the ground being hilly. Same with shadow lengths... It only takes a shallow hill to change the appearance of a shadow's angle.
Anyway...
Could the moon landing have been faked? Um, no. They'd have needed the entire set to be in a vacuum chamber. And physics-wise, there are _no_ discrepancies, in the recordings and photography, with the idea that they were really on the moon.
> One example:
That's fine, but there was no evidence that Iraq did have nukes, so that's a pretty poor example. The only "evidence" I recall being given is the aluminum tubes and the bogus yellowcake uranium story. That's hardly comparable to the moon landing in any way.
As for the points, I'll address the only two you don't say yourself are bad reasons. They're both debunked by the link posted earlier (specifically here). If your strongest two points are things that are easily proven wrong by spending 5 seconds on google, you may want to rethink your "open-mindedness".
Ha! I didn't follow that link the first time, Dave. I should have known... :D
Okay, maybe man has, but, the first landing wasn't real.
BTW: The link I gave was just 1 one 100s of sites on this. So you are saying that all these people (including many experts) are just "fools" and "dillusioned"?
>but, the first landing wasn't real.
You think. Please don't state your opinion as if it were fact.
>BTW: The link I gave was just 1 one 100s of sites on this. So you are saying that all these
>people (including many experts) are just "fools" and "dillusioned"?
Are you just going down the list of logical fallacies?
What about those people who have spent THEIR ENTIRE LIVES researching moon dust form the first moon landing? This is ridiculous!
>> >but, the first landing wasn't real.
>> You think. Please don't state your opinion as if it were fact.
I don't know if man has ever.
But I do KNOW (not think) that the FIRST landing was a hoax.
Shut up.
> But I do KNOW (not think) that the FIRST landing was a hoax.
This is the part where you prove it, instead of restating your original claim in caps
>> What about those people who have spent THEIR ENTIRE LIVES
>> researching moon dust form the first moon landing?
Rovers get samples from mars. Why not the moon?
In 1969? We didn't have space rovers! Take your ridiculous consiracy theories elsewhere. This is idiotic.
>But I do KNOW (not think) that the FIRST landing was a hoax.
No, you believe it was a hoax based on the observations provided by others. The only way to prove it, and thus know for a fact, is to get NASA to officially say that it was a hoax and describe how it was performed. You need to learn how to debate before trying to convince people of anything but your complete idiocy.
>> This is the part where you prove it
Okay, say I give you a reason that it didn't happen, and you tell me why that reason isn't proof.
Hmm?
>> trying to convince people of anything but your complete idiocy.
Ohh? What makes me an idiot now? Maybe because you BELIVE it?
According to your logic, I am not an idiot untill I say that I am.
You are contradicting your self.
You haven't! All you have to "prove" your point is one fake website and your insistence that you're right. Either offer GOOD proof (which isn't possible) or shut up. And no, Prelude is right. You have already offered us conclusive proof you are an idiot. NASA hasn't done the same for the "fake space landing".
Okay, I see you people still think it's ONE site...
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm (This one is the best)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
http://iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...0808-moon2.htm
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/20...oonLanding.asp
There are many more, but I think I made my point that it's not just ONE site.
I posted this link before on a completely different topic.
Yet somehow, it seems strangely relevant
Quite remarkable, it could be the most widely quoted URL outside of www.google.com
>According to your logic, I am not an idiot untill I say that I am.
>You are contradicting your self.
Not really. First and foremost, I didn't call you an idiot. But if you'd like me to prove it based on your assumption of my logic, I'll be happy to.
1) An idiot is defined as a foolish and/or stupid person.
2) It's foolish to debate when one doesn't know how to debate.
2a) A foolish action exhibits lack of good judgement.
2b) The point of a debate is to convince others that your opinion is correct.
2c) Playing a game without knowing the rules greatly increases the chances of losing.
2d) Therefore, debating without knowing how to debate is foolish.
3) Performing a foolish action after being told it's foolish suggests a foolish person.
4) Therefore your actions suggest that you're an idiot.
5) However, you're not an idiot unless you admit it.
5a) A foolish person exhibits lack of good judgement.
5b) Only an idiot would perform a foolish action after being told it's foolish.
5c) Therefore, performing a foolish action is an admission of being an idiot.
6) Therefore, you're an idiot.
>There are many more, but I think I made my point that it's not just ONE site.
And I already made my point that your point is a logical fallacy.
You do realize that, except for the first link, all those links say we did go to the moon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Queatrix
Quoting random sites without looking at them is yet another admission of your idiocy.
EDIT: From one of your sites:Quote:
The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense.
> But I do KNOW (not think) that the FIRST landing was a hoax.
Queatrix, it's one thing to doubt when faced with arguments to each you don't have an answer, it is another completely different thing to say You Know. Either you are giggling on the shadow of your posts reading our responses (and consequentely having fun in wasting other peoples time), or you are too thick. Either way, you lose.
Govtcheez, as for the argument concerning paralel shadows, very interesting. Thank you for the link. I couldn't find it before. Probably I put too many keywords. It clearly shows the theorists are wrong and taught me something new.
But try not to be too judgemental next time. You are not going anywhere if you accuse people of being dishonest. I was this close to stop debating with you.
Is there a full moon or something?
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...arch&va=lunacy
Hence, lunatic.
"I used to be a werewolf, but I'm all right noooooooowwwwwwwwwwww."
Thanks for the link, Salem ;)
Prelude's the debating queen!! I'd love to hear a future ... discussion with you and your child :)
Anyone can debate with a moron and look good. But yes, Prelude, I bow to your debating queendom. I'd love to get those genes! :)
manutd? can i ask you something?
Yes...
You know what? Forget it.
OK. :rolleyes:
Seen the effects of quality debates and thought better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
you read my mind ;)
Apparently. A good debate is always fun, although that wasn't really a debate. It was all one-sided debunnking of stupid theories :rolleyes:
There were three sides actually. The Theory is Good side, the Theory is Bad Side and the Yes Mam Side
Three sides, only one actually debating well...
Honest to God... Mood landings are fake, 9/11 is a conspiracy, Y2k would end the world, oh, and Bush didn't win in 2000. But back to moon landings...
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy is awesome. Go there, and be enlighted.
Now, for the original link posted... first, I refuse to believe a site that cannot spell skeptic - if you're going to take on NASA, at least spellcheck and neatly format your site. (Horzontal scrollbar of annoyance...)
If you take film and a glass of water from your house at 70F, to a cold winter day at 0F, does the film instantly get cold? Does the water freeze over instantly? No. The heat still has to dissapate/be absorbed. On the moon, the film wasn't in direct sunlight, and the moonwalks lasted only a few hours. (Much less than a lunar day.)Quote:
An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences?
Some other questions:
If you were in Mission control, would you want your astronauts jumping ten feet?Quote:
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
The width of an object doesn't affect it's ability to turn - friction between the wheels and the dirt would. Friction, however, depends on material and weight.Quote:
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
While they were moving it, adjusting it, attaching it? Of course it'll move.Quote:
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
If you're unconvinced: First, make sure you know what happens to ballons filled with H, He, or O that have a candle held up to them. Then take a trip down to Alabama, and see the Saturn V. Just look at a Saturn V, and you can see - those astronauts didn't go anywhere but the moon.
Queatrix you are a fool. Plain and simple.
You conspiracy theorists embrace every thing but the truth even when it stares you right in the face.
We could even take you to the moon, throw you out and snap a photo, come back and post on the net and millions of idiots just like you would say it was a hoax and would find some way to dismiss it.
Usually the most obvious answer is the correct one.
To say you 'know' this or that when you don't have anything to do with the space program (thank god) is far beyond arrogant and rude. It really dips more into stupidity.
I think that a better name for "conspiracy theorists" would be "superstitionists". ;) No seriously, we've been believing it for all these years, why would we "find out" now? And like has been previously mentioned, where did they land the rocket? They launched it... and then what? They couldn't have just been orbiting the earth the whole time. Especially when there's video footage to prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
Also, I think this thread is nearing its end . . .
Oh wait! This thread hasn't died yet.
Man never walked the moon?
Attachment 7002
Obviously.
My inability to draw prevents me from being funny in a different way.
> where did they land the rocket?
That's an easy question: they didn't. Saturn rockets weren't like the space shuttle.
Maybe I don't know how to debate, I'll grant you that.
But how do you explain all these things that don't line up?
> But how do you explain all these things that don't line up?
The explanations are all over the thread and on some links provided. Check them out.
EDIT: Oh, and for the record Queatrix, I'm ok if you call me stupid, idiot, ignorant, dishonest and whatever else you want for an whole month! I really am. No kidding. I happen to think you deserve it after this thread. The important thing when trying to make a point across is to insult the other person as much as you possibly can, as you certainly have had the pleasure(?) of experiencing on this thread.
Queatrix, have you seen any detective movies? If yes, then you should know that proofs mean nothing when there's no motive (unless the NASA workers are psychos which I doubt they are).
Is there any reason why they should fake that moon stuff? Do you really think it is cheaper to set up cameras, make people float, emulate the moon environment so well if they even have never been on moon and after launching the rocket, landing it to a secret place and destroy it?
If you don't have a motive, you don't have a crime.
"Sure, you've debunked every point I've brought up, but how do you explain the stuff that doesn't line up? You know, the stuff you've ALREADY debunked? How do you explain THAT!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Queatrix
You're a goddamn retard.
> Is there any reason why they should fake that moon stuff?
It was a huge victory over the Soviets to make it to the moon before them. Even if the Soviets didn't care (I don't know what their reaction was like), the public reaction here was pretty damn big. That was enough.
Quote:
It was a huge victory over the Soviets to make it to the moon before them. Even if the Soviets didn't care (I don't know what their reaction was like), the public reaction here was pretty damn big. That was enough.
Do you really think it is faster to...?Quote:
Do you really think it is cheaper to set up cameras, make people float, emulate the moon environment so well if they even have never been on moon and after launching the rocket, landing it to a secret place and destroy it?
Would it be easier and cheaper to fake it? Hell yes it would; it took almost a decade to do it the real way.
I'm pretty sure that, even in the 60s, if you gave some filmmaker the billions that were pumped into the Apollo program, he'd be able to fake moon footage pretty convincingly. And before someone jumps on me for changing my tune or something, I'm not saying in any way that this WAS what happened; I'm just saying it'd be a hell of a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it. It's a pretty stupid question to ask.
> I'm pretty sure that, even in the 60s, if you gave some filmmaker the billions that were pumped into the Apollo program,
Which reminds me of one of the questions that website site poses which also makes no sense. The author asks why is it today it would take more time to put a man on the moon than it did 40 years ago.
What is mostly annoying about that question is that the author surely knows the answer but decides instead to ignore it. Never before or after did NASA enjoyed such a tremendous money influx from the government and private companies. Also NASA personnel were almost exclusively bound to that one project. It would take more time today because there's no enough money and NASA has to still worry with its many other projects and cannot simply abandon them.
Could they fake moon in 60s so well that even nowadays it is found to be true?
With that much money, there's no doubt in my mind that they could.
But there's no motivation. Let's stop this thread, I'm losing braincells by the second :mad:
The best refutation I ever heard for this had nothing to do with the various claims made on hoax sites. Consider the Ben Franklin quote, "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." Now consider how many people would need to be "in" on this particular secret. The fact that no one has, is pretty convincing proof for me...
The same quote/idea can be applied to many, many conspiracy theories.
Yet MORE good proof. Now let's stop.
The conspiracy movie about this was pretty convincing i gotta say that, so yes i think that man neva walked on the moon. however, my knowledge of this is limited so i cant really say much about it. But yea I'm a believer ;)
You should read the book Bad Astronomy, or the online version: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
It disproves the moon landing conspiracy theory very thoroughly.
Oh god, not again. §áßø†æ™, read the rest of the thread and realize that if you continue you'll get picked apart and eaten.
manutd, people are entitled to their opinions. And that is true regardless how ridiculous, untrue or contrary to your own as they may be. It's a wonderful thing the fact they are.
If this debate disgusts you so much that you even expressed it over 2 other threads besides this one, my suggestion is... don't read the posts on this thread.