PDA

View Full Version : Man never walked on the moon.



Pages : [1] 2

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 07:52 AM
Man never walked on the moon.

maxorator
11-12-2006, 07:54 AM
Yeah, people have only jumped on the moon :)

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 07:55 AM
No, they haven't. All the stuff you hear about, and those pictures...they are all lies.

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 07:57 AM
Look at this:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

I'm convinced

maxorator
11-12-2006, 07:58 AM
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.

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 08:03 AM
Maxorator, you didn't read the link.

maxorator
11-12-2006, 08:05 AM
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.

divineleft
11-12-2006, 08:06 AM
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.


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.
shut up

maxorator
11-12-2006, 08:09 AM
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.
That's what I believe. No crappy web page can change that belief.

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".

divineleft
11-12-2006, 08:14 AM
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.

Rashakil Fol
11-12-2006, 08:34 AM
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

Govtcheez
11-12-2006, 08:35 AM
>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.

maxorator
11-12-2006, 08:36 AM
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?

Mario F.
11-12-2006, 08:45 AM
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.

Prelude
11-12-2006, 08:47 AM
>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.

Dark_Phoenix
11-12-2006, 08:50 AM
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....

Govtcheez
11-12-2006, 08:50 AM
> 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.

Dark_Phoenix
11-12-2006, 08:54 AM
Wow... I guess that means I am a figment of my own imagination :p

Mario F.
11-12-2006, 09:18 AM
> 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.

Govtcheez
11-12-2006, 09:32 AM
> 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.

Mario F.
11-12-2006, 10:13 AM
> 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.

BobMcGee123
11-12-2006, 10:14 AM
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!

Rashakil Fol
11-12-2006, 01:18 PM
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.

Govtcheez
11-12-2006, 01:25 PM
> 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 (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#shadow)). 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".

Dave_Sinkula
11-12-2006, 01:26 PM
http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showpost.php?p=547315&postcount=3 :p

Decrypt
11-12-2006, 02:20 PM
Ha! I didn't follow that link the first time, Dave. I should have known... :D

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 02:30 PM
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"?

Prelude
11-12-2006, 02:42 PM
>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?

manutd
11-12-2006, 02:47 PM
What about those people who have spent THEIR ENTIRE LIVES researching moon dust form the first moon landing? This is ridiculous!

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 02:48 PM
>> >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.

manutd
11-12-2006, 02:49 PM
Shut up.

Govtcheez
11-12-2006, 02:49 PM
> 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

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 02:50 PM
>> 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?

manutd
11-12-2006, 02:51 PM
In 1969? We didn't have space rovers! Take your ridiculous consiracy theories elsewhere. This is idiotic.

Prelude
11-12-2006, 02:51 PM
>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.

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 02:52 PM
>> 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?

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 02:55 PM
>> 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.

manutd
11-12-2006, 02:55 PM
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".

Queatrix
11-12-2006, 03:04 PM
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/news/2001/010808-moon2.htm
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp

There are many more, but I think I made my point that it's not just ONE site.

Salem
11-12-2006, 03:05 PM
I posted this link before on a completely different topic.
Yet somehow, it seems strangely relevant (http://cboard.cprogramming.com/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=14571)
Quite remarkable, it could be the most widely quoted URL outside of www.google.com

Prelude
11-12-2006, 03:14 PM
>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.

Govtcheez
11-12-2006, 03:14 PM
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/news/2001/010808-moon2.htm
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp

There are many more, but I think I made my point that it's not just ONE site.
You do realize that, except for the first link, all those links say we did go to the moon?

manutd
11-12-2006, 03:17 PM
Quoting random sites without looking at them is yet another admission of your idiocy.
EDIT: From one of your sites:
The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense.

Mario F.
11-12-2006, 03:19 PM
> 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.

Salem
11-12-2006, 03:21 PM
Is there a full moon or something?
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=lunacy
Hence, lunatic.

"I used to be a werewolf, but I'm all right noooooooowwwwwwwwwwww."

manutd
11-12-2006, 03:22 PM
Thanks for the link, Salem ;)

twomers
11-12-2006, 03:25 PM
Prelude's the debating queen!! I'd love to hear a future ... discussion with you and your child :)

manutd
11-12-2006, 03:27 PM
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! :)

Mario F.
11-12-2006, 03:30 PM
manutd? can i ask you something?

manutd
11-12-2006, 03:39 PM
Yes...