Landing on Moon: was that true?????? (947)
Rumyet: what makes me to believe that it was a fake landing is,how come they make 6 landings in 3 years and no one landing in 40 years.and other countries such as Russia,Japan,or european space agensy is not ready yet to land in there when usa done it 40 years ago.just common sence and thinking.
I hate repeating myself, but since u didn't read my post above, I'll summarize. Noone wants to go back, the moon is a big dusty rock. There is no reason to send man back to the moon.
Let's apply your "common sense and thinking" to a trip to an amusement park. If I told you I went to Disney World six times, the simple fact that I havnt been back since doesn't make me a liar, it makes me a person that doesn't want to go back a seventh time.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Addendum...
I just got a mail that said NASA plans on a moon landing in 2018. While this probably is true, many missions like this are scrubbed for lack of funding as a consequence of a lack of interest in the mission, not for a lack of capability. I can think of quite a few reasons to go back to the moon. For one, a gigantic moon based mercury-filled spinning parabolic dish reflecting telescope with light gathering power far beyond anything we have now would be an awesome thing to do on the moon. And while I would love to see deep field photos of the edge of the cosmos that are hundreds of times better than anything yet seen with Hubble, I'm not gonna hold my breath on the U.S. spending that kind of money or time on something with a questionable return on the finanacial investment. The financial support always goes to the cheaper, easier to build and maintain orbiting telescopes like Hubble and the future planned successors of it.
I just got a mail that said NASA plans on a moon landing in 2018. While this probably is true, many missions like this are scrubbed for lack of funding as a consequence of a lack of interest in the mission, not for a lack of capability. I can think of quite a few reasons to go back to the moon. For one, a gigantic moon based mercury-filled spinning parabolic dish reflecting telescope with light gathering power far beyond anything we have now would be an awesome thing to do on the moon. And while I would love to see deep field photos of the edge of the cosmos that are hundreds of times better than anything yet seen with Hubble, I'm not gonna hold my breath on the U.S. spending that kind of money or time on something with a questionable return on the finanacial investment. The financial support always goes to the cheaper, easier to build and maintain orbiting telescopes like Hubble and the future planned successors of it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rockabillyrouge: Next they'll be saying the World Trade Center collapsing was just another Hollywood hoax.
That would be silly wouldn't it. Of course the WTC collapsed.
But the pretense that planes disappeared into the buildings is certainly a hoax (although Hollywood would have done a much better job of faking it).
Rockabillyrouge: Honestly, if anyone has conclusive proof that the moon landings were fake, then please by all means share it with us.
That, in itself is a disinformation tactic. Insisting on "conclusive proof" before being willing to debate an issue.
From "the 27 rules of disinformation" (a clarified version of Lifton's "25 rules of disinformation").
21. Ignore proof presented, but demand impossible
proofs. Regardless of what material may be presented,
claim that it is irrelevant and demand proof that is
impossible for the opponent to come by.
It is impossible for anyone to offer "conclusive proof" that the moon landing DID or DID NOT occur?
If such "conclusive proof" existed there would be no debate.
In the absence of such undeniable proof, debate and is the only way to even approach the truth.
The moon missions supposedly occurred way back in the 60s when computers still had tubes and LEDs didn't even exist.
The available technology at the time was more industrial than scientific. There is no way that it could have supported a moon mission.
I don't believe for a second that the US was capable of putting men on the moon in the 60s, or even now for that matter.
Crossing the Van Allan Radiation belts in an unshielded aluminum spacecraft, the astronauts would have been cooked alive.
The following is claimed to be scientific proof that the astronauts could have crossed the Van Allen belts without harm.
...to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However...because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow, it would ...be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, and would take about 1.5 hours to pass beyond 38,000 km....
Assuming...no shielding by the spacecraft gives a (total) dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.
... the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limit in Britain is 15 mSv per year.
Now lets look at the obvious holes in that "proof".
First, If the dose of radiation in the belts is (as claimed) "50mSv in 300 seconds" and the craft were in the belt for 1.5 hours (as claimed) the astronauts would already receive far far more than a lethal dose of radiation.
But if we strip away the disinformation we see just how ridiculous the claim really is.
Although the craft would indeed be moving at 4.6 km per sec, that motion would not be vertical speed, it would be orbital speed.
A spacecraft doesn't just aim at the moon and fly straight to it at 4.6 kps. It first orbits the earth in low orbit and then accelerates orbiting higher and higher, before performing a slingshot maneuver to sling it from earth orbit into lunar orbit. The orbital escape velocity of 4.6 kps only translates to a vertical speed of about 1 kps.
So instead of crossing the most intense part of the radiation belt in just a few minutes (as lyingly claimed), it would take a couple of hours and the astronauts would receive many times the lethal radiation dose.
------ This thread is Archived ------
RayfromUSA:
It is impossible for anyone to offer "conclusive proof" that the moon landing DID or DID NOT occur?
It is impossible for anyone to offer "conclusive proof" that the moon landing DID or DID NOT occur?
My point excactly, the op has repeatedly put forward claims that he is privvy to information that prove the moon landings were fake, yet despite several request to share that proof, we're all still waiting, so how can you have a balanced debate with someone who make's a claim yet wont provide anything to back that claim
------ This thread is Archived ------
Andy are you goofin on Elvis..
Hey ..hey...hey..hey..
Hey ..hey...hey..hey..
------ This thread is Archived ------
If such "conclusive proof" existed there would be no debate.
If conclusive proof of a fake moon landing existed, I'm sure it would open up all manner of debates.
The moon missions supposedly occurred way back in the 60s when computers still had tubes and LEDs didn't even exist.
What on earth does that prove??? it proves absolutely nothing... besides, if you care to look into the developement of computors a little closer, you'll find that Appollo had the worlds first digital computors.
If conclusive proof of a fake moon landing existed, I'm sure it would open up all manner of debates.
The moon missions supposedly occurred way back in the 60s when computers still had tubes and LEDs didn't even exist.
What on earth does that prove??? it proves absolutely nothing... besides, if you care to look into the developement of computors a little closer, you'll find that Appollo had the worlds first digital computors.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rockabillyrouge: If such "conclusive proof" existed there would be no debate.
If conclusive proof of a fake moon landing existed, I'm sure it would open up all manner of debates.
If conclusive proof of a fake moon landing existed, I'm sure it would open up all manner of debates.
There'll always be those who don't believe it. Without actually taking them to a landing site personally, they'll never believe it. They'd probably question the authenticity of that experience anyway.
I'm sure NASA don't particulary care what these people believe, other than the ongoing denigration of NASA's greatest achievement.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Blues63: There'll always be those who don't believe it. Without actually taking them to a landing site personally, they'll never believe it. They'd probably question the authenticity of that experience anyway.
I'm sure NASA don't particulary care what these people believe, other than the ongoing denigration of NASA's greatest achievement.
I'm sure NASA don't particulary care what these people believe, other than the ongoing denigration of NASA's greatest achievement.
There are also people who dont believe the holoceust ever happened ether so obviousely some people just dont believe anything
------ This thread is Archived ------
Blues63: There'll always be those who don't believe it. Without actually taking them to a landing site personally, they'll never believe it. They'd probably question the authenticity of that experience anyway.
I'm sure NASA don't particulary care what these people believe, other than the ongoing denigration of NASA's greatest achievement.
You got that right!! I'm sure NASA don't particulary care what these people believe, other than the ongoing denigration of NASA's greatest achievement.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I think it's true but there are conspiracy theories everywhere.
------ This thread is Archived ------
My Uncle worked as an engineer for Nasa. I do definately think we did. What amazed me was that a picture of the earth was shown from there and if you were watching you were watching your Home planet /selves. My grand mother was 72. She died a little after that landing. She spoke broken english. She noticed before it was noticible that the climates were changing and her TV was always going into a fuzz picture. In all her wisdom she said. "Aut,[meaning, Well,] ever since they landed on the moon everything is changing". Back in 1969, I often wondered how she thought of it and now that atomsphere is home for so many space centers and when we broke through the/our atmosphere the weather was changing in all seasons.Now global meltdown,warming, glaciers are melting and all the floding and earthguakes, you have to wonder , how she thought that out and yes it had started this atmospheric mess, we live in. But we do have cable TV.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rockabillyrouge: With respect, they did have the technology, it was called Appollo. Yes, their putting people (of all nationalities, not just Russian and American)into Earth orbit in the I.S.S. for scientific research, various experiments, and to study the long term effects of being in a weightless enviroment with a view to accertaining the practicality of a manned mission to Mars at some point in the future.
It would be very interesting to see if discussions like this one would occur if the Germans or the Japanese or the Eskimo's were the first to land on the Moon. I somehow doubt it as it would leave little opertunity for "yank bashing" which is what this thread appears to be more about than actually authenticating or disproving the Moon landings.
Again I say if anyone has 100 per cent concrete evidence that the Moon landings were fake, then please provide the evidence and I'll happily concede to that evidence.
It would be very interesting to see if discussions like this one would occur if the Germans or the Japanese or the Eskimo's were the first to land on the Moon. I somehow doubt it as it would leave little opertunity for "yank bashing" which is what this thread appears to be more about than actually authenticating or disproving the Moon landings.
Again I say if anyone has 100 per cent concrete evidence that the Moon landings were fake, then please provide the evidence and I'll happily concede to that evidence.
You obviously do not know much about the apollo project !
By 1967 the project was in such a bad state that the number one apollo astronaut Gus Grissom told the press that the whole apollo project was going nowhere. A week later he and the other 2 astronauts were killed in a "mysterious" accident.
The head od safety was fired because of his recommendation that the whole project had become very dangerous. He delivered a 500 page report to congress and a week later was killed in a "mysterious" accident along with his wife and only child.
His document dissapeared.
Gus Grissom's family are still loking for answewrs from Nasa and believe that he was murdered.
------ This thread is Archived ------
tallman51: You obviously do not know much about the apollo project !
By 1967 the project was in such a bad state that the number one apollo astronaut Gus Grissom told the press that the whole apollo project was going nowhere. A week later he and the other 2 astronauts were killed in a "mysterious" accident.
The head od safety was fired because of his recommendation that the whole project had become very dangerous. He delivered a 500 page report to congress and a week later was killed in a "mysterious" accident along with his wife and only child.
His document dissapeared.
Gus Grissom's family are still loking for answewrs from Nasa and believe that he was murdered.
Oh damn,he's back!By 1967 the project was in such a bad state that the number one apollo astronaut Gus Grissom told the press that the whole apollo project was going nowhere. A week later he and the other 2 astronauts were killed in a "mysterious" accident.
The head od safety was fired because of his recommendation that the whole project had become very dangerous. He delivered a 500 page report to congress and a week later was killed in a "mysterious" accident along with his wife and only child.
His document dissapeared.
Gus Grissom's family are still loking for answewrs from Nasa and believe that he was murdered.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rockabillyrouge: My point excactly, the op has repeatedly put forward claims that he is privvy to information that prove the moon landings were fake, yet despite several request to share that proof, we're all still waiting, so how can you have a balanced debate with someone who make's a claim yet wont provide anything to back that claim
First of all I am NOT the original OP !
Second: YES I am privvy to to info which I cannot talk about on here for very obvious reasons.
Please see earlier threads !!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Oh damn,he's back!
He's been to the moon
In future, only take one LSD tab at a time
------ This thread is Archived ------
cynicalorange: He's been to the moon In future, only take one LSD tab at a time
------ This thread is Archived ------
Blues63: There'll always be those who don't believe it. Without actually taking them to a landing site personally, they'll never believe it. They'd probably question the authenticity of that experience anyway.
I'm sure NASA don't particulary care what these people believe, other than the ongoing denigration of NASA's greatest achievement.
I'm sure NASA don't particulary care what these people believe, other than the ongoing denigration of NASA's greatest achievement.
It's worth noting that the only so called proof that we landed on the moon is........
1. Nasa said so.
1. the same dozen or so photos which ahve been out there for the last 40 years. What about the other thousands of photos ??
Don'r forget the very funny video footage too.
I hope that director got sacked !
------ This thread is Archived ------
tallman51: It's worth noting that the only so called proof that we landed on the moon is........
1. Nasa said so.
1. the same dozen or so photos which ahve been out there for the last 40 years. What about the other thousands of photos ??
Don'r forget the very funny video footage too.
I hope that director got sacked !
1. Nasa said so.
1. the same dozen or so photos which ahve been out there for the last 40 years. What about the other thousands of photos ??
Don'r forget the very funny video footage too.
I hope that director got sacked !
I see the fail in your argument on point 1. You can't say that we didn't land on the moon, just because you say so
Oh, you have two point 1's
Psssssst! 2 comes after 1
------ This thread is Archived ------
cynicalorange: I see the fail in your argument on point 1. You can't say that we didn't land on the moon, just because you say so
Oh, you have two point 1's
Psssssst! 2 comes after 1
Oh, you have two point 1's
Psssssst! 2 comes after 1
Of course I can !!
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
Reality Check
Heavy Bass In The PM
1830's Music
How far is too far?
Salami, Salami, Baloney
What I Lack In Vocabulary
What's going on
rarotonga
Icebergs Still Around
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
but to put the man in space and landing on the moon r 2 diferrent things.today they almost everyday sending man in space.but no one to the moon in 40 years .and thats after 6 successful landings?!no i wouldnt believe it,mate.
With respect, they did have the technology, it was called Appollo. Yes, their putting people (of all nationalities, not just Russian and American)into Earth orbit in the I.S.S. for scientific research, various experiments, and to study the long term effects of being in a weightless enviroment with a view to accertaining the practicality of a manned mission to Mars at some point in the future.
It would be very interesting to see if discussions like this one would occur if the Germans or the Japanese or the Eskimo's were the first to land on the Moon. I somehow doubt it as it would leave little opertunity for "yank bashing" which is what this thread appears to be more about than actually authenticating or disproving the Moon landings.
Again I say if anyone has 100 per cent concrete evidence that the Moon landings were fake, then please provide the evidence and I'll happily concede to that evidence.