Did we go to the moon?

lo_res_man · Wed 19/12/2007 04:34:29

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!

monkey0506 · Wed 19/12/2007 04:55:19

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...

Oliwerko · 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. 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.

lo_res_man · Wed 19/12/2007 06:20:59

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.

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Wed 19/12/2007 06:21:25

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?

shbaz · Wed 19/12/2007 06:42:36

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.

MrColossal · Wed 19/12/2007 06:54:19

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!

SSH · Wed 19/12/2007 08:17:27

I know I didn't

Renal Shutdown · Wed 19/12/2007 08:19:33

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.

lo_res_man · Wed 19/12/2007 08:40:26

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.

Nacho · Wed 19/12/2007 08:49:37

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.

AlbinoPanther · Wed 19/12/2007 09:06:07

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

...

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.

Indie Boy · Wed 19/12/2007 09:34:36

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.

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"

InCreator · Wed 19/12/2007 09:43:46

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.

AlbinoPanther · Wed 19/12/2007 09:51:20

Like I said there is no wind on moon! Scientific fact!

Nacho · Wed 19/12/2007 10:06:23

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.

lo_res_man · Wed 19/12/2007 10:10:49

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 ...

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?

Tuomas · Wed 19/12/2007 11:46:19

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.

Khris · Wed 19/12/2007 12:23:38

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.

EldKatt · Wed 19/12/2007 13:11:06

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.