Did we go to the moon? I think we did, and I think many hoax believers resort to manipulation and outright forgery to prove their point. The name calling and mockery on youtube on any video that states either opinion is just atrocious. They harp on about small effects that if taken alone might mean something, but if taken in the larger picture prove nothing. Refuse to listen to evidence, and are downright rude if someone remotely disagrees with them. To me the evidence is overwhelming, and though questions deserve to be asked, the disgusting attitudes of all parties involved as well as the stick their hands in their ears "lalala" stance many take when presented with countering evidence frankly disgusts me. Can we do better? Can the brave men and woman of AGS, pull this off? Can we be more mature the a bunch of youtubers? Lets find out!
There's certainly...ahem...evidence enough to support either claim. What it really comes down to is which pieces of evidence are real, reliable evidence, and not simply some type of fabrication (which could be presented by either side).
Personally I believe that we have been to the moon, "but then I think rain is wet, so who am I to judge?" However I don't believe that it really matters whether we've been to the moon or not. The moon doesn't presently offer any significant amount of resources when weighed against the cost of retrieving them based on present technologies. Of course the moon could hold the keys to knowledge about our solar system we currently do not have. But I digress.
The major problem here is the same as all "conspiracy theories." People will do whatever it takes to try and make their point. Even if it means lying, cheating, stealing, and so forth, if they feel passionately enough about it, they'll do whatever it takes. Even, as you say, flatly ignoring any evidence presented which may represent a flaw in their case.
One such example I found while watching a television show on this very subject in which one particular gentleman said that he didn't believe mankind had ever left the Earth's atmosphere or even build anything which could withstand such a journey. To this I literally remarked aloud, "Oh yes. Well, you do have fun with that theory of yours while you sit at home and watch your satellite TV."
People tend to be largely stubborn. They will get set on one point-of-view and will fight tooth-and-nail to defend it, even if the occasion may arise that they realize they are in the wrong.
Another example of this could be presented surrounding the many 9/11 investigations, but again, this is getting off topic.
I think I may sense some 'just had a heated debate about this on YouTube with some infuriatingly hard-headed underage jerks' steam coming from your general direction though lo_res... :D
Well, personally, I believe we were there. But. There is also the but. Of course there is the so called "evidence" like no stars on the photos etc that support the theory that we were NOT on the Moon. It may be so. But does it really matter if we were there or not?
Same, who killed JFK? I made a big research on this because it really interests me, and you can definitely tell, that not everything is ok from the government's side, but do you trust people if some of they say, that "I was the shooter who killed JFK" or "I saw two FBI agents packing up a car with weapons an hour earlier" ?
I don't know, in this case, I think it is a hoax, and that there were actually 3 or 4 shooters on the scene, no matter on which "side" they were. But that is off topic, sorry, I got kinda carried away.
yes, there is certainly a disturbance in the force. I mean, they have even deleted my comments, which I did make sure to be well thought out and spell checked, when I asked them to go see a video that provided evidence for my point. After asking me, and I did , check out their videos. I have seen creationist vs evolutionist debates that went better.
[edit] that's okay, but space is important to me. I truly believe if we don't get off this planet in vast numbers SOON, Earth is toast. Some people have argued to me we should spend the money on the environment, and my argument is "Get the pressure off earth, so we don't harm it any more then we do." Of coerce, we should do research into alternative energy, because, the resources we have can't sustain over the long term.
Oh boy. People are still asking this question?
Why not wonder if there was a Renaissance? If the French Revolution really took place? Matter of fact, why not question everything that this friggin' generation didn't experience first-hand?
Quote from: Oliwerko on Wed 19/12/2007 06:15:21
Well, personally, I believe we were there. But. There is also the but. Of course there is the so called "evidence" like no stars on the photos etc that support the theory that we were NOT on the Moon. It may be so.
All of the evidence is thoroughly debunked. You can't see stars in the daytime on Earth either, for the same reason you can't see them on the bright side of the moon.
But really, we all know where arguing on the internet gets you. I constantly research alternate energy and efficiency, which inevitably runs me into crowds of Hydrogen heads and free-energy freaks. Both groups are full of crap, don't know physics, don't want to listen to physicists and believe whatever fringe concoctions they find over reasonable debate any day. I used to try to knock sense into them, but you have to be brutal and direct about it, which feels something like stomping on a puppy because they're so innocent and stupid before you do it.
If your really interested in the debunking of these "we didn't go to the moon" myths:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Phil Plait is the man to go too!
And if you're really interested in who shot JFK, Oliwerko, I have a link for you too!
I know I didn't
Quote from: lo_res_man on Wed 19/12/2007 06:20:59
Some people have argued to me we should spend the money on the environment, and my argument is "Get the pressure off earth, so we don't harm it any more then we do." Of coerce, we should do research into alternative energy, because, the resources we have can't sustain over the long term.
Since when did rocket fuel become an alternative energy source? If we leave en masse anytime soon, we'll do even more damage to the earth and leave nothing for the stubborn folk who don't want to leave or the poor folk who can't afford to leave.
its hydrogen ain't it? ;) But if we do get off, it will reduce population pressure. Earth can not take much more of an increase in population and industrialisation. SO much has already been lost. On the other hand, yes, we need to figure out how to make space flight uber cheap, so we can create a true frontier.
What? WHAT?!?!? There WERE 2 ARMED FBI AGENTS IN DALLAS THE DAY JFK DIED?!?!?!?! WooooooW! The EvidENCE I WantED!!! NIXON KILLED JFK!!!
On a serious note... There are a lot of lies in JFK affair, that's true. For example, Oswald was told to be a terrible shooter, whereas the thruth is that he was one of the three best shooters in his company. It was told that is impossible to shot what Oswald shooted in the time he did and with that accuracy and severall shooters did it, confessing that it was actually "quite easy", getting a success ratio of 2/3. It was also told that it was impossible to be at the base of the book storage building in the time Oswald was after the shooting without looking very tired, and it has been reproduced. It has been said that it was impossible to do the walk Oswald did from the book storage building from the cinema where he was captured and killing a cop in the way in the time Oswald did, and it's been reproduced... There are a lot of lies, indeed... Lies pointing that there is something mysterious in what Oswald did.
Well, if you know all facts, there is a slight doubt!
Everything started when SSSR done some research in the field of earth to earth over continent missles. And as a by product their scientiests came up with "sputnik" the first artaficiall satellite. That happends in 1957, so with all that cold war and such things going on, US government and society had their eyes on Soviet union. In the morning after SSSR lunched "sputnik" all American newspapers wrote a bold headlines about that. On the other side of world russian newspaper hardly even noticed that crusiall event. But as soon as SSSR goverment found out how US society reacted on their achievment they tried to take an advantage out of it, and they succseded.
So the next thing that happend was a statment of J.F. Kennedy that americans will step on to the moon by the end of 60's.
And the project has begun.
Menwhile SSSR sent numerous expeditions, and they succesfuly finished all of them.
On the other hand US had Apollo 1 tragedy.
And then in 1969 man walked on the moon's surface, that was a last chance for US to finish their project on time and avoid loosing credibility (remember Kennedy's promisse)?
That is the main thing that bothers me!
- And why the hell man walked on the moon in 1969 and never after that?
- And flag was moving too like there were wind (I study geography and I just passed an exam about solar system, believe me there is no wind on the moon), visiabillity of stars were mentioned but since moon have no atmosphere this is not a fact, lousy video transmission, well, mainly the flag ;D ...
I would be trully happy if man US or SSSR, any man ever steped on to the moon, but, politics is a competition without rules.
Read some of the stuff on the site MrColossal linked.
Quote
Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.
Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.
New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?
The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.
This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!
Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.
Basically if think that the only reason a flag moves is because of the wind then your silly. :P
I have had always mixed views on the subject, basically I believe that we got to the moon, but I wonder why we haven't been back there since. I think that NASA should russle up all the conspiracists and send them to the moon. They haven't got anything better to do than talk about the moon. Why don't we let them breathe in some of the "moon air" ;D
To me, either americans did or did not go to moon, don't mean a thing.
I fail to see this as big step for humankind. Every big scientific breakthrough was, is and will be used against people, I mean, for military purposes. Sputnik WAS a breakthrough, all planes and ships rely on GPS navigation now, and I can finally believe that earth is round, thanks to Google maps.
It's weird how humans are always better than their inventions. My grandparents always said that a lock is meant for animals, it can't keep people from entering anywhere. What human creates, it can destroy. This is true and applies to almost every human invention. Even with hundreds of satellites around globe, US military forces still cannot find these terrorists in mountains, planes still crash and ships get lost. And police still cannot effectively find stolen cars.
How important is a dusty flag on the moon? Should I even bother to believe or not believe it? Where did it advance us? I see that nowhere. Despite jawdropping amounts of money NASA spends daily on space programs, it still haven't generated anything really, globally practical for people. Africans still die because AIDS and hunger, Islam fundamentalists still strike every now and often, balance of power in the world is still very-very bad, with 3 major countries having fate of everyone else depending on the sanity of their current or next leader.
How much could this money NASA spent fight those problems and many others I didn't mention? How much it could really make difference?
Wow, we placed a flag on the nearby rock.
Go USA!
EDIT: Of course, for Americans, as their patriotism is often tested with moronic leaders (who like war), this should be important to maintain patriotism.
Like I said there is no wind on moon! Scientific fact!
Neither in a Holywood stage, where the "hoax moon landing" was videotaped, no? ;)
Really... Do you think that the US government is so stupid of making the biggest (and by far, the most expensive) "put on scene" in history (We agree that all saturns were launched, no?) for missing that in some scenes a current of wind was moving the flag? Do you think that the Us government spent billions in making a set on scene and ran out of budged for including some light bulbs to fake some stars?
Sorry, if you (Whoever you are, dear conspiranoic) believe that, you are more stupid that the suposed stupidity of the US government.
Quote from: AlbinoPanther on Wed 19/12/2007 09:06:07
- And why the hell man walked on the moon in 1969 and never after that?
- And flag was moving too like there were wind (I study geography and I just passed an exam about solar system, believe me there is no wind on the moon), visiabillity of stars were mentioned but since moon have no atmosphere this is not a fact, lousy video transmission, well, mainly the flag ;D ...
if it is jiggled and well, waved, by an astronaut, it would wave and for a time after because of inertia, and the fact it being a vacuum there would less friction to slow it down after. But if no astronaut is touching it, and it hasn't been jiggled, its dead stock still. the reason it stays up at all is because it had a pole through the top horizontal supporting it.
And what makes you think we only went in 1969? Ever here of Apollo 12 Apollo 13 (though they never landed due to an accident) Apollo 14 Apollo 15 Apollo 16 and Apollo 17? Not to mention Apollo 8 and Apollo 10, both of witch went into lunar orbit. Besides, where did we get all the moon rocks? And you can't say meteorites because a quick search of google will show you a fresh moon rock, looks very different from a moon meteor. They could have been faked, but these have been tested by scientists all over the world, and match Russian sample probes, which came after. were those faked as well? are the scientists part of a vast conspiracy?
Quote from: lo_res_man on Wed 19/12/2007 10:10:49
And what makes you think we only went in 1969? Ever here of Apollo 12 Apollo 13 (though they never landed due to an accident) Apollo 14 Apollo 15 Apollo 16 and Apollo 17? Not to mention Apollo 8 and Apollo 10, both of witch went into lunar orbit.
I really see no effect in my life whether we did or didn't go, but in my eyes all of this really is a huge waste of money, and yeah, sure, it's a biggie going up there, but I can't help but thinking how all those money and time could have been spent in something that is important. Like ice cream. And what's with the will to go to Mars at that? You've got robots analyzing the ground there, doing better jobs than what some NASA trained astrofraud could ever do... Yeah, actually, I'm a bit narrow minded when it comes to space oddities and exploring nothingness, apart from star wars.
Quote from: AlbinoPanther on Wed 19/12/2007 09:51:20
Like I said there is no wind on moon! Scientific fact!
Please elaborate. But read Indie Boy's post first.
Quote from: AlbinoPanther on Wed 19/12/2007 09:06:07
- And why the hell man walked on the moon in 1969 and never after that?
Quote from: Indie Boy on Wed 19/12/2007 09:34:36
...but I wonder why we haven't been back there since.
If this actually bugs you, please think about why we really went there in the first place: Because we could, because we wanted to show we could, and because Americans wanted to show how they were awesomer than Russians. The Apollo program did this, and no reasons really remain for doing it again. The fact of the matter is that the scientific value of manned lunar landings is really, really tiny, and certainly negligible when you weigh in the risks involved, and the disadvantages humans have when compared to machines under these circumstances.
The Apollo program was mainly a symbolical, and perhaps to an even greater extent political, achievement. And at the end of the day that makes it pretty pointless if you're rational about it. So why
would we go back?
And on another topic:
Quote from: lo_res_man on Wed 19/12/2007 10:10:49
They could have been faked, but these have been tested by scientists all over the world, and match Russian sample probes, which came after. were those faked as well? are the scientists part of a vast conspiracy?
Sadly, that's a (stated or unstated) major premise of most conspiracy theories. They're
all in on it. Scientists, big pharma, government, what have you. That's what usually makes it so pointless to discuss these things, because if that's your premise no evidence really means anything. You have a means of dismissing literally any argument against your position.
I always like to say the moon landings were faked. I don't know if I actually believe that or not, but it makes perfect sense to me why the Americans would have wanted to fake it (and Nixon, who was president during the same period, wasn't exactly squeaky clean, was he?). There is indeed evidence to debunk the conspiracy thoeries.... but even those debunkings have some fairly persuasive counter arguments.
It's just an attractive theory and there's always the possibility that one day the 'truth' might be revealed, and those of us who like to believe they were were faked are hanging on to it, in the hope that one day we can say 'I knew it all along'.
It's a shame it took place in the grey days of black and white (and blurry) television, because it's always going to look dodgy even if it's real... it just seems to me that safely landing humans on the moon and bringing them back alive is something that might be doable now, but should have been impossible back then.
Apparently America is planning to make some new voyages, surely it would be impossible to fake in this day and age, (or am i being as naive as our parents were in '69?). So it will be interesting to see what happens. I suppose the only way to truly know, would be to go there yourself... and even then you don't know if your being duped?... A lot of people think that the likes of Neil Armstrong genuinely believed they were on the moon even though they were actually just in the middle of a certain compound in the Nevada desert.
What I'm saying is... I've learned not to come out with "I think it was fake", because I always receive a barrage of flame, and I don't believe that claim quite enough to back it up properly. But you can't deny it's a sexy theory and it's easy to understand why some people are hanging onto it.
Americans went to the moon. The soviets never expressed any doubt about it. There' s no need of further evidences.
Quote from: Stupot on Wed 19/12/2007 14:50:38
I always like to say the moon landings were faked. I don't know if I actually believe that or not, but it makes perfect sense to me why the Americans would have wanted to fake it (and Nixon, who was president during the same period, wasn't exactly squeaky clean, was he?). There is indeed evidence to debunk the conspiracy thoeries.... but even those debunkings have some fairly persuasive counter arguments.
It's just an attractive theory and there's always the possibility that one day the 'truth' might be revealed, and those of us who like to believe they were were faked are hanging on to it, in the hope that one day we can say 'I knew it all along'.
this is the silliest argument I've ever encountered... It's not even an arguement, it's just a.... I don't know what it is. You're willing to ignore mountains of evidence just because you like a false theory?
Quote
It's a shame it took place in the grey days of black and white (and blurry) television, because it's always going to look dodgy even if it's real... it just seems to me that safely landing humans on the moon and bringing them back alive is something that might be doable now, but should have been impossible back then.
Do you also doubt the existence of World War 1 or 2 or the holocaust? I mean the footage is all grainy and you can easily see how they could have faked it all.
It was possible to go to the moon because the government and people were scared to death of the russians gaining any sort of superiority so they poured billions of dollars into research for years and years.
QuoteI suppose the only way to truly know, would be to go there yourself... and even then you don't know if your being duped?... A lot of people think that the likes of Neil Armstrong genuinely believed they were on the moon even though they were actually just in the middle of a certain compound in the Nevada desert.
Do you "believe" that there is a war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you "believe" in Guam island? Do you "believe" that I live in Troy, NY? I mean, you haven't been to these places first hand, this could all be an elaborate hoax! Do you know there are people in this world who actually believe they were REALLY fighting in the Iraq war when actually they were just in the Nevada desert.
Quote
What I'm saying is... I've learned not to come out with "I think it was fake", because I always receive a barrage of flame, and I don't believe that claim quite enough to back it up properly. But you can't deny it's a sexy theory and it's easy to understand why some people are hanging onto it.
You want to believe a theory but you don't know enough about it. C'mon man, you're on the internet, at least give yourself confirmation bias and only read moon hoax sites to convince yourself that you're right! Or do some research [like read the Bad Astronomy link I added to this thread] and let's have a dialog about what's in that article that you still can't accept as evidence or find fishy.
Human beings walking on another celestial body is sexier than anything you can pretend happened. "Aliens gave us technology to beat the russians!" Nope, human beings figuring out a way to get human beings up into space and walking around on the moon is so sexy I'm popping boners just thinking about it.
QuoteYou're willing to ignore mountains of evidence just because you like a false theory?
Ultimately, that's the only reason anyone believes in these theories. It's fun! I think the reality is more interesting but I'm not a conspiracy nut.
QuoteAnd why the hell man walked on the moon in 1969 and never after that?
I'm so tired of hearing this! I guess people walking on the moon is only worth remembering the firs time... but people do remember the moon buggy at least. That wasn't there in 1969. To remind people, there were three manned orbits around the moon, then 5 different manned landings, with some failed missions.
Lots of people went to the moon, and it's not that fantastical a thing, considering the amount of money spent, and considering how easy it is for small space programmes to send stuff around the moon these days. Obviously people don't go back anymore because the Apollo program is over, there's no big bad competitor to justify rebuilding it, and nobody would be all that impressed now.
As always the difficulty of making the conspiracy theory work overshadows any difficulty they might had getting people to the moon. There are a lot of people involved in a project costing 24 billion 1960s dollars, lots of people to realise it's all pretend. At the very least accept that if they did spend all that money on making a realistic special effects film they'd have got someone to work out how a flag moves in space.
QuoteA lot of people think that the likes of Neil Armstrong genuinely believed they were on the moon even though they were actually just in the middle of a certain compound in the Nevada desert.
Hehe... I missed that one. So, Neil Armstrong can get confuse Nevada with the Moon? Do you think he was so idiot? Or maybe there is in Nevada some kind of antigravity device that makes that place having 6 times less than in the reast of the Earth? amazing...
The moon is fake.
And made of Cheese.
Quote
How much could this money NASA spent fight those problems and many others I didn't mention? How much it could really make difference?
The answer to this question lies beyond the naive and overly simplistic understanding of economics that presumes "all that money" was wasted and had no beneficial economic or social effect. Also the choice of the language "fight those problems" rather than "solve those problems" is also curious as it seems to elevate process/intentions over results. Are you really saying that you would have preferred that the money be spent on income redistribution and/or other socialist programs that are, in your view, a good unto themselves regardless of the results produced?
Quote
I truly believe if we don't get off this planet in vast numbers SOON, Earth is toast.
I agree, the sooner we launch the B Ark the better! :)
Quote
Like I said there is no wind on moon! Scientific fact!
Since nobody was ever there how can you be so sure?
Well, I have to go now, Elvis is picking me up for lunch .. ;D
If there is no atmosphere there are no conditions needed for establishing wind. My poor english puts me limits in explaining this.
Basicly, moon haven't atmosphere=there is no wind on it's surface.
But still I haven't watched moon landing video for awhile, and after all that was in 1969 main actors are dead or very old, so who cares. Written history is filled with lies!
Like InCreator said this argument wouldn't help in any way, nobody listen voice of the people.
If Americans did it they prooved that they can and they enjoy their superiority!
Meanwhile hundred of thousend people died from starvation.
And earth is more and more poluted.
That sucks
Quote from: AlbinoPanther on Wed 19/12/2007 18:02:16Written history is filled with lies!
Exactly.
The main problem is, that these debates lead nowhere, just because there are tons of "evidence", fake or not, supporting BOTH sides. They can make YOU believe one side, but when 10 people read the same pile of evidence for both sides, it is obvious, that their opinions will differ. It is all about your personality. Nothing more, nothing less. Why? Becaue you know a big *** about it. The problem is that you BELIEVE, you do not KNOW. As we were taught at school: To believe is to accept a fact without actual proof.
Eric - thanks, I have links that will last me 10 more years to read ;D
To that JFK case - there is SO much evidence and witnesses that confuses the whole case. The truth is buried deep deep deep under these fake witnesses and fake evidence. What I am trying to say, that there is no way to find the truth, because it is forever lost under the piles of evidence (which is good for government if they really did it). I really do not know who killed JFK, but I personally believe that government or any of its fractions did it. The Zapruder film is fake. Some photos are fake. (I am not talking about arguable photos like - the man in the grassy knoll or Oswald in the door of the depository building in the time of shooting - that is really not clear like the fakiness of the Zapruder film) Why? Probably because somebody did not want the truth to come out. I believe that the 3rd shot came from ahead, from the grassy knoll. The first and second one could possibly come from the depository, but the third one...I think not. But again, I know nothing about it, so I can only choose what to believe.
AP: But the flags did not wave. They never fluttered in the videos or the photos because as you rightly state there is no significant wind on the moon. Look at the videos and see a wrinkly but static bit of cloth hanging from a pole... What sort of idiot would bring a wind machine into a presumably indoors low gravity studio anyway?
Sure there are more important things than going to the moon, it was in some ways a frivalous propaganda exercise but it's still an amazing technological achivement. Compared to all the petty wars, miscalculated policies and exploitative profiteering that has gone on in history, Apollo was pretty cheap and achieved something that inspired a lot of people. And hey, the money didn't even get spent on killing people! It most certainly wasn't the best use of resources... wonderful observation. That means it doesn't matter if it happened or not?
Oliwerko: Yes, but people attempt to defend any poorly supported belief by saying "Hey, you don't KNOW I'm wrong!". Of course... everything we say we "know" is based on our understanding of what we see, nobody is saying there is logical proof that men went to the moon. It's all about the evidence as you say, and acknowledging that there is evidence for both viewpoints does not say anything about the weight of evidence on each side. In the moon hoax case it's so overwhelmingly one sided.
The JFK conspiracy people strike me as more reasonable than the moon hoax people at least... there's more room for reasonable doubt there. I think the mainstream account is the most convincing but there's a lot of room there for something else to happen, sure. And lots of political motivation to do it. So I don't think these people are as ignorant.
I wholeheartedly agree.
In philosophy it's a good idea to question everything, in real life it isn't. The moon hoax believers don't ever come up with anything new; all they do is parrot the same old, thoroughly debunked bullshit arguments. The badastronomy site doesn't just offer another opinion, it offers very simple methods to see for yourself that the so-called arguments for a faked moon landing are so flimsy a school child could see right through them.
What's left is a piece of history that's questioned only by some ignorant conspiracy nuts.
My point is: only question things which there are good, valid, logical arguments against. History may be filled with lies, but if 99% of the history books tell it one way and neither side can proof they're right, what's the point in doubting it?
Don't, otherwise you'll end right back in philosophy: "How do you know that keyboard is actually there? Maybe it's just your brain telling you it was." Pointless.
Quote
... Basicly, moon haven't atmosphere ...
Since nobody was ever there how can you be so sure? *** suddenly a feeling of deja vu rushes over RickJ ***
Quote
Meanwhile hundred of thousend people died from starvation.
Yes, please feel free to enlighten us about the vaillant effort the good people of Serbia/Yugoslavia made to save these poor starving people. Or did they just sit on their fat asses watching the moon landing on tv and just not give a shit about those starving fools?
Quote
It most certainly wasn't the best use of resources... wonderful observation.
How do you know this to be true? What facts do you have to back this up? How much human suffering was avoided because of the research and other sociological benefits? You really can't make a conclusion here without answering that question. There were plenty of other countries not spending on space, what were they spending their money on and what did they accomplish by it?
I don't think I'd need to analyse it too much to say it wasn't the absolute #1 most pressing issue facing humanity at the time. That's entirely a matter of opinion of course, depends on your priorities. My point was that just because something isn't solving poverty, or whatever you think the biggest issue in the world is, it can still be of some worth.
I know there are side effects from the research that have helped people on the ground, the military, rocket technology for launching civilian satellites, down to providing jobs, all sorts of things. I did say it was a relatively good use of money compared with where a lot of spending goes. And I would agree it was one of the most successful space projects, although I do prefer stuff like Hubble overall, the moon landings were a wonderful feat of exploration.
I think Russia did the correct thing when chose not to compeate with the US in the moon race and spent that resources in finishing with famine on the World.
Oh, wait...
Every country wastes resources, no country is doing all it can to make the world a better place, that's an impossible expectation. This is all irrelevant when it comes to if the moon landing was for real of course, this thread doesn't need a national pissing match.
Related, one thing I like about the whole space thing is when people talk about the time "we" went to the moon. Like Swedes and Canadians and Brits and Slovakians have in this thread so far. It's nice to see that since the cold war, people think of it as one of the greatest human achievements in general, and not just a source of national pride. I think that makes it a fairly big deal for global culture, even if some people here don't feel that way personally.
Exactly... I personally feel better knowing that we were there than thinking that those money could have gone to an UN plan to finish with the famine in Africa, which should have ended, knowing the UN antecendents, 75% for the local communist warlord' s personal fortune, 15 for the UN bureaucy, 9% for buying new AK-47s for the guerrilla, and 1% for famine fighting.
@lo_res_man: I agree that leaving Earth is inevitable, in light of the facts that: 1.The sun will one day die 2.Another Ice Age may eventually hit 3.A meteor could strike the Earth at any time. However, I think most of those things (certainly 1 and 2) are thousands of years off. In the meantime, we have to develop alternative fuels and population controls and figure out how to continue to live on the Earth if we want to live long enough to develop spacecraft that can approach the speed of light/warp drive/whatever.
@Tuomas: "I can't help but thinking how all those money and time could have been spent in something that is important. Like ice cream." Actually, the type of ice cream called Dippin Dots was developed with technology developed for the space program. Still think it was a waste of money? Yeah, me too. But people never considered the ancillary benefits of the space program. For instance, the Russian's attempt to keep up with U.S. developements in the space field probably accelerated the disintegration of the USSR and brought an end to the Cold War sooner than would otherwise have happened. Plus, as previously mentioned, we got Dippin Dots. And those memory-foam mattresses. Pretty sweet.
I just skimmed through this thread (at work and can't take the time to read it thoroughly) so I'm not sure if my point has been made yet.
I definitely think we landed on the moon.
The [U.S.] President can't get a blow-job in the oval office without that secret getting out. I find it very doubtful that a secret/lie as massive as a faked moon-landing could stay a secret for so long.
You can mask budgets and government spending (the billions of dollars spent on the moon-shot), and you can easily create hollywood sets to fake the moon-landing ... but those kinds of things would require/involve a lot of people to put together and, as history has shown us (time and time again) somebody would have spilled the beans.
I don't know ... I don't really see why it's so hard to believe we landed on the moon. Given all the other things humans have accomplished it doesn't seem so unlikely to me. Personally I think to even suggest it was faked is an insult to those involved.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 19/12/2007 21:37:06
and you can easily create hollywood sets to fake the moon-landing ...
No... It was not so easy, in 1969 to fake the moon gravity and the vast distances covered by the moon rover. Let' s remember that those "fake" moon landings also involved Saturn rockets launchings (Impossible to fake, million of people saw them). Let's sum that to the costs of the "production" of the "fake" landings and we will soon reach to the conlcussion that the "filming" should have probably been more expensive than a real landing. Also, when Russia gave up in the moon race the US were so close of success (and nobody is so dare to deny that Apollo missions till 9, or 10 were real) that it should have just been silly not to go a step beyond.
If the US did not go to the moon, they "accidentally" walked all the necessary steps. Also, the "evidences" against the moon landings are so stupid that it' s not worth to comment them...
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 19/12/2007 15:40:07
this is the silliest argument I've ever encountered... It's not even an arguement, it's just a.... I don't know what it is. You're willing to ignore mountains of evidence just because you like a false theory?
It was never supposed to be an argument, it was an admission.
Quote
Do you also doubt the existence of World War 1 or 2 or the holocaust? I mean the footage is all grainy and you can easily see how they could have faked it all.
Come on... I'm not the first person to use point out that grainy footage is an indication of a hoax... are you telling me you beleive in the Bigfoot video and all those UFO photos?... I have no doubt World Wars 1 and 2 happened, because My grandparents were there and told me about it (well WW2 at least).
Quote
Do you "believe" that there is a war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you "believe" in Guam island? Do you "believe" that I live in Troy, NY? I mean, you haven't been to these places first hand, this could all be an elaborate hoax! Do you know there are people in this world who actually believe they were REALLY fighting in the Iraq war when actually they were just in the Nevada desert.
Although there is no doubt that these wars are going on, it's true to say that we don't always know exactly what's going on... most of us (unless we happen to know some of the soldiers out there experiencing thisng first hand) have to believe everything we see on the news or in the papers... and we all know that what is reproted in the media can not always be fully trusted...
Whats to say that the television was any more trustworthy in 1969 than it is now?
Quote
You want to believe a theory but you don't know enough about it. C'mon man, you're on the internet, at least give yourself confirmation bias and only read moon hoax sites to convince yourself that you're right! Or do some research [like read the Bad Astronomy link I added to this thread] and let's have a dialog about what's in that article that you still can't accept as evidence or find fishy.
This insults me...
If only you knew how much I've read into this subject (both sides) since I was 12 (i'm 24 now, thats half my life), When The X Files was big and the internet was in it's youth... I used to be well into paranormal goings on and was a conspiracy theorist throughout my teenage years. But I've since become an adult, and a logical one at that... I balance the arguments, take everything into account and come to my own conclusion (to which I think I'm entitled)...
In the case of the moon landings my opinion is this... and had been for the last five years:
'They probably didn't really fake it, but would it be so much of a surprise if it turned out they had? It seems plausible, they had a motive, and I had more fun when I believed it was fake so I'll stick to that for now, thank you very much.'
IF it turned out they faked it, no it wouldn't SUPRISE me. Yes they certainly had a motive IF they faked it. But if they were any real proof they faked it, the former Soviets would have called them on it. They ALSO had a motive. So even if it COULD have been faked with the tech of the time, (which I don't believe it could IMNHO) that doesn't mean it was. just because something CAN be faked, doesn't mean it has been. People do get bullet wounds, we can fake one with make up, does that mean there is a vast conspiracy of gunshot victims? They would have a motive as well, not getting killed. But if it was, how would you keep it a secret?
Quote
It was never supposed to be an argument, it was an admission.
Hehe ok, so you ADMIT to ignoring mountains of evidence! That's not much better!
Quote
Come on... I'm not the first person to use point out that grainy footage is an indication of a hoax... are you telling me you beleive in the Bigfoot video and all those UFO photos?... I have no doubt World Wars 1 and 2 happened, because My grandparents were there and told me about it (well WW2 at least).
Comparing landing on the moon which is supported by a mountain of verifiable evidence with bigfoot doesn't really work in my opinion. If ALL we had was grainy photos of the moon landing then maybe there'd be some doubt.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not the best evidence to help prove something happened. If I were to just listen to your grandparents talking about WW2 and then listen to some guy named Cletus talking about how they were abducted by aliens who turned him into a bigfoot... I'd have to believe or disbelieve them both equally unless they offered up evidence. Luckily for your grandparents they have a mountain of evidence. Sorry Cletus, I don't accept your hairy back as proof that you were a bigfoot!
Quote
Whats to say that the television was any more trustworthy in 1969 than it is now?
Take hundreds to thousands of scientists that worked on the various shuttles that went to the moon and cross reference it with the tv reporting along with all the documents and books and science done and you come up with a nice verifiable proof. We landed on the moon and what we saw on TV was correct. It's not just TV but everything else as well that verifies the news reports.
Quote
This insults me...
If only you knew how much I've read into this subject (both sides) since I was 12 (i'm 24 now, thats half my life), When The X Files was big and the internet was in it's youth... I used to be well into paranormal goings on and was a conspiracy theorist throughout my teenage years. But I've since become an adult, and a logical one at that... I balance the arguments, take everything into account and come to my own conclusion (to which I think I'm entitled)...
Never said you weren't entitled to your own opinions, I hope I didn't come off that way.. And I apologize, you didn't say that you didn't know enough about the theory to back it up properly, you just don't believe it enough. But this just makes no sense to me. You don't believe in a theory enough [for various reasons?] to really argue about it but you WANT to believe it? Because it's more fun to distrust hundreds of thousands of people, millions of dollars wasted, decades of lies and lives lost etc... Doesn't sound like fun to me but to each their own, as you say.
Honestly, I'm interested if you read the Bad Astronomy debunking of Moon Hoaxers and if so what on there doesn't convince you? That's the more interesting discussion, I think.
The reason I pick the Bad Astronomy debunking is because it's a great collection of responses to claims so we can talk about them without having to say "There was a site once that said something about light bouncing? I can't find it now." and we can say "On page 3 I didn't accept the claim that... yadda yadda "
What I like about bad astronomy is that he admits when he has been wrong, and re edits his work. He isn't as dogmatic.
I went to the moon. It was bloody good.
Don' t feel so insulted, Stupot.
http://goingfaster.com/icarus/all_the_dead_heroes.htm (http://goingfaster.com/icarus/all_the_dead_heroes.htm)
You are also insulting the memories of those heroes, and their relatives... :P
Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/12/2007 11:59:00
Don' t feel so insulted, Stupot.
http://goingfaster.com/icarus/all_the_dead_heroes.htm (http://goingfaster.com/icarus/all_the_dead_heroes.htm)
You are also insulting the memories of those heroes, and their relatives... :P
I never thought about it like that.
So let's hope the landings were real because if they were faked then these good men have died in vain.
Unless they were also in on it.
Yes, they probably are in the Island with Elvis, Lennon, Kennedy and Jim Morrison. ;)
EDIT: Anywat, thanks, Stupot... It was a reply waaaaaay mature than I expected from a person who has doubts about if we were there. Congratulations. :)
I think that it was not so easy to fake it. Actually, the people working on the Apollo project invented vast number of materials/devices/procedures that are used in normal life now, we have seen space ships starting from CC, I mean, if it is a hoax, it is a REALLY BIG one.
It is really easier to gather piles of fake evidence if there were 3 people that assasinated JFK and perhaps 10 more that have known about/planned it, than to fake a moon landing. On the other hand, WTC is IMHO a total stupid naive hoax that nobody sees, even when it is obvious, and look - people believe things that are told them on TV. They just blindly believe. It could be similar in the moon cause, but....it just don't fit there. ( wow, that's an argument ;D)
Guys, this argument is POINTLESS.
http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
PROOF the moon landing never happened.
Oli, can you elaborate? Where is the obvious hoax that nobody (except your enlighted majesty, or course) can see in the 9/11 tragical events?
Quote from: Oliwerko on Thu 20/12/2007 14:11:47
I think that it was not so easy to fake it. Actually, the people working on the Apollo project invented vast number of materials/devices/procedures that are used in normal life now, we have seen space ships starting from CC, I mean, if it is a hoax, it is a REALLY BIG one
The fact that people have created huge rockets with enough explosive material (fuel) to leave Earth's atmosphere is not an argument in favour nor against the moon-landing (or the historical accuracy of Buck Rogers...which I personally somewhat doubt). They are two completely different things:
Have men (and women) left the Earth? - Yes...
Have they landen on the moon while being away from Earth? - Frankly, I really don't care. I see no reason why anyone would want to go to the moon (and back again). I certainly wouldn't want to. But...a lot of people have done a lot of things that I do not find useful, nor that I would do myself. Is it technically possible to land on the moon and leave again? - Probably. Is it technically possible to fake it? - Sure (it sure helps that no one really knows what the moon is like up that close...assuming that the landing was a fake).
So does my life change by some guy walking on the big round lump of cheese up in the sky? - No.
Nevertheless, one thing I can say for certain in regard to the question 'did we go to the moon?' - I don't know about you, but I didn't.
Misj'
Oh, c'mon. If the moon landings were faked by the U. S. to scare the Russians, do you think NASA would leave "errors" in the footage that the average person could see as soon as it aired?
Just because events seem unbelievable - the Holocaust, the September 11 attacks, presidential assassinations - doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/12/2007 15:41:37
Oli, can you elaborate? Where is the obvious hoax that nobody (except your enlighted majesty, or course) can see in the 9/11 tragical events?
Yeah, I like my new name, I can sign my school tests with "enlighted majesty" ;D
Seriously now, I have seen tons of materials on WTC that actually convince me to bias to the "conspiration side". I do not force anyone to believe it, it is personal. I can only say, that the Pentagon thing is really weird for me. I am convinced that it was a bomb. Did you see any 747 ever crashing into a building making a nice round hole big as a regular van, cutting off the laps on the car park nicely without breaking them? The damage on Pentagon was not caused by any plane IMO. Whatever it was, it was not a plane, I think. About WTC, did you ever see a building like that fall like that? This just CAN NOT happen, it was a controlled destruction. Look at any planned destructions of old buildings, they fold like that into themselves. Do you think it is possible to happen, that a building is damaged by a plane(s) and it actually falls like that? Into itself? I don't know, but IMO it was controlled destruction. If it wasn't, the buildings would fall like a falling tree. Many many experts told that building can't just fall into itself like that when it is not a controlled destruction. Firemen heard destructions, and I have seen footages showing puffs of white dust blowing when the building was falling - the dynamites or whatever that caused the controlled destruction. Off course, witnesses and footages can be easily fake, and I do not trust a footage on internet that can be easily faked, but the controlled destruction and the hole in pentagon are facts. These photos are facts.
I know that at least 5 people here will argue that it is opposite with reasonable arguments, that is understandable. It is personal, everyone believes that thing that suits his personality. It is like when you can't eat something because its taste is in your opinion HORRIBLE. It is the same principle.
These things above are just my opinion, not truth, I know that ;)
Have you by any chance read the popular mechanics article about this?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
I think that's it.
Thanks for the reply Oli ^_^ When you said something "obvious" I though it was something really interesting :) It' s a relief to know you were refering to the same crap than the others mentioned before. :)
Quote from: Oliwerko on Thu 20/12/2007 20:07:41
It is personal, everyone believes that thing that suits his personality. It is like when you can't eat something because its taste is in your opinion HORRIBLE. It is the same principle.
No it isn't. Even if it suits me not to believe in the theory of gravitation, I'm still not falling up. Not everything is a matter of taste.
What it IS more like is the difference between creationisim and evolutionism. Now, I was raised on creationisim, BUT I was also raised to think, to examine the evidence, even if it makes me uncomfortable. Now I still don't belive in abiogenesis, but evolution itself makes a lot more sense. In fact I am grateful my parents believed creationisim, because with my natural scientific curiosity, it made me think about every article I read. I studied the arguments, looking for loopholes. And I did read articles, I read science textbooks, encyclopedias, and adult science magazines. I would force myself to read them, though my dogmatic side said, "this can't be right!" Eventually I came to the conclusion, evolution much more fit the facts then strict literal creationisim.
It was difficult, in fact , it IS difficult. But I am proud to say I have tried my best to look at the facts and not just accept the bald statements. In fact I hope to have a career in the sciences, among other things. And incase you haven't figured it out by now, I think we went to the moon. That it was one of the greatest achievements of not just the United States of America, but of the whole world. Scotch was right, its wonderful how we think WE went to the moon. It is one of the of the few moments of human history where mankind can stand together and say "We did it" To quote Jim Lovell: From now on, we live in a world where man has walked on the moon. And it's not a miracle, we just decided to go.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/conspiracy_theories.png)
@dasjoe
;D ;D ;D Thank you, I am still laughing ... ;D ;D ;D, etc, etc