Thread: Man never walked on the moon.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I don't know if men have really walked on the moon.

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....

> 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....

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

> 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".

http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showp...15&postcount=3

Ha! I didn't follow that link the first time, Dave. I should have known...

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!