Topic awaiting preservation: Proof the moon landing was a hoax !

Well, what can you say ? Cant really argue with the facts can you ?

Moon Landing - It was never real

No Sig ?

I knew it all along. I just knew it.

I'm surprised the Nasa managed to fool the whole world with their picture of a grey and dusty moon while everybody knows it's made of green cheese.

Actually, on a serious note, there is actually quite a bit of evidence the moon landings were indeed fake.

http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

...and why does anyone think, with our technology, that getting to the moon is unreasonable?

I mean, we had the technology in the 60's to visit the outer solar system... but we didn't anyway... so the moon is an easy target.

---
Website

Sure, but just because it's easy doesn't mean we did it.

NASA isn't exactly the smartest bunch of people on the planet.

I'm actually quite suprised that there has not been another moon landing since the 60's ? I mean, there has to be a reason why they have not gone back up there ?

No Sig ?

Eh, face it. The moon landing was staged simply for the political reason of beating the Russians. It was good for image, morale, the stock maket, and as a way to cover up the spending of hundred of millions of dollars for black operations.



Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Mars is much more interesting for lots of reasons. We need to quit dickin' around and go there. It took less than eight months for the rovers to get there...eight frikkin' months.

I mean a decade or so of missions and we could start warring over who owns the land and resources on an entire new planet! That'd own. Y'know how if you get into an MMORPG late it's not as cool? Then a new one comes out and you can finally start fresh like the vets of the other game? Oh ya.

Then eventually we can have wars between Mars and Earth. We can fight over other habitable planets and colonize them. Then we could fight on those planets and all the planets could fight each other, until we have hundreds of planets fighting on themselves and with each other.

</low opinion of most humans>

Obviously Ram, you do not know about the Documentary from the guy who attempted to prove that it was a hoax, and ended up actually doing the opposite.

He took all of the critical views, and attempted to replicate the hoax.

It was not possible to do, with the equiptment that the had in those days.

It was a fascinating docu.

Obviously WebShaman, you do not know about the Documentary from the guy who attempted to prove that the guy who attempted to prove that it was a hoax, and ended up actually doing the opposite was a hoax, and ended up actually doing the opposite.

AKA "No, here is my evidence that you're wrong: I heard there was this guy...ya he proved you wrong".

Just messing around.

"There was this one time at band camp..................yeah, and it is really made of cheese...........and it turns out the moon landing was actually real, whoa ! who would have guessed ?"

This thread is getting bizarre.

No Sig ?

Hehe...

That was pretty funny....

haha i love that
great stuff!

quote:

---

Obviously Ram, you do not know about the Documentary from the guy who attempted to prove that it was a hoax, and ended up actually doing the opposite.

---

Obviously I haven't.

I'd be interested if you remeber the title.

As an aside, I don't really believe that we didn't go, but there are some interesting anamolies which people have pointed out over the years. Newly released footage showing astronauts forging the appearance that they were further from earth than they really were, the possible effects of the Van Allen radiation belts, shadows in the pictures being wrong, crosshairs in photos appearing behind the subjects, inconsistencies in astronaut statements, etc.

Anyways, everyone knows NASSA and the Blackstronauts went to the moon first anyways. Very funny video.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Actually, the shadows are correct, according to physics - anyone who works with PS knows this. Don't trust your eyes.

I'll see what I can dig up regarding the docu. I saw it here in Germany, but it was an English to German conversion.

They guy actually talked with those disputing the Moon landing, to understand what exactly they were saying was wrong, etc. and then went about seeing if it was actually plausible, using the techniques and equipment available at the time.

There was a documentary about this before...actually years back! and when my Physics teacher was talking about it in class I really wanted to tell him that, but I didn't.
The landing was created somewhere in the States, some restricted place, kinda deserted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Edited by Yannah on 07-25-2005 00:42)

So who's seen Capricorn One?

Capricorn One is a great film.. !!!!!!

No Sig ?

(Edited by axleclarkeuk on 07-25-2005 03:43)

Ramasax - as far as the shadows being wrong, this can be easily explained away as a complete misunderstanding of how shadows fall by simply going outside on a well lit day and walking around.

If the space in question was a flat plane, with all of the objects in the plane being perfect geometrical examples with flat planes on each side, and the light was cast directly from the same direction on every object (as opposed to being cast from a fixed point), then the "errors" might actually be errors.

But look around as you walk outisde - you will never see all the shadows going straight in one fixed direction.

So are you agreeing that the landing was a hoax?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be interested to see some data on crossover between the people who believe the moon-hoax garbage and those who buy the "evidence" put forth by Creation "scientists."

Yannah, do yourself a favor and read this.

And here's some good stuff on light and shadows.

Very cool link, Wes. I was looking for some good info on surface reflection and such. C'mon, people. this stuff isn't hard to understand...

This site is pretty good - MoonHoax

In 2008, the LRO should put this question to rest, once and for all.

I love badastronomy.com. Somehow science is so much more fun when you're mocking ignorant people.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

*see's photo's*

Ok I know I'm good at doctoring photo's but I didn't do those!!

*goes serious... what?!*

Everybody knows the Lunar Landing was a hoax the flag, the shadows, the camera movement everything is just too weird! The camera they took with them to the moon was attached to the front of one of the astronauts suit and if so then he wouldn't have been able to focus properly on the other astronauts yet the pictures and everything else are as they were taken by a professional! That and alot more finally conclude that no doubt it was a hoax. NASA must have reached the moon by now but back then the topic rises confusion.

Here's something I don't think alot of people know, there are rumors that say that the Russion Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin wasn't the first man in space! Check this article:

http://www.vor.ru/Space/Space_next105_eng.html

I can't say how much of this is true but the story is kind of juicy!

quote:

---

So are you agreeing that the landing was a hoax?

---

Certainly not. I am saying that one of the major issues that people continue to bring up is that the shadows in the photos of the moons surface could not have been caused by a single light source (the sun). This concept is painfully ignorant, as can be seen by simply walking outside and looking around on a sunny day.

Do I beleive we went to the moon?

Yes.

Would I have a hard time beleiving the the government would create such a hoax?

No.

But it will take soem *real* evidence to convince me of it - so far I've seen none. We've talked about this before too - have to see if I can dig up the old thread.

In the meantime, please do yourself a favor (anyone who is convinced by the nonsense that has been presented as evidence), and read the links psoted above.

^AMEN!!!

quote:

---

Wes said:

Yannah, do yourself a favor and read this.

---

I've actually seen that documentary and it's pretty awesome, I actually do believe that the whole thing was just a hoax.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^

Yannah: You've read all the information posted here and you still think the moon landing was a hoax? Dare I ask why?

For the record, my own thinking is similar to DL's. I believe that the government was capable of hoaxing the landing (meaning that they could have and would have), I just don't think they did. Had it really been a hoax, I don't think they would have made all of the "silly mistakes" that hoax believers claim they did (of course, all of these "silly mistakes" have perfectly logicial explanations). In other words, it would have looked more like what people would have expected to see on the Moon, rather than what they would really see on the Moon.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

quote:

---

I actually do believe that the whole thing was just a hoax.

---

Would you care to elaborate?

Perhaps take a stab at refuting the arguments made on the 'bad astronomy' page that Wes linked to for you? Did you read the page, or did you just see that it was about the Fox show and not go further?

I think Yannah didn't realize the URL was *against* the documentary, but assumed it was *about* the documentary and so didn't read it.

Yannah, read that link! ( http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html )


 

Yannah: Read the page I linked to.


Actually read it.


Read it.



Read.





It.

Fine! I guess I didn't read it all, somehow just read the photos themselves...
reading

Ok I read it and well it is true that it has a very subjective facts especially about the occurence of the intensity of illumination of the stars. However, there are still possibilities that they may have since USA was a very competitive country at that time and still is, getting in the outer space was pretty hard for Russia don't you think and that moon was far more further away from that?
And have you seen that Shuttle Discovery lift off today? it was quite dissapointing seeing those tiles, those guys can't even make a perfect lift off, yet they've gone on the moon?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good idea guys lets go to the moon, are u ready ?

Make my day and give me a smile

Dont know why my computer is double posting sorry

(Edited by Webgirl on 07-27-2005 12:52)

What makes you think that one's inability to be perfect in making something defy one of the most powerful forces in nature means that they can't make it to the moon? Yes, America's competitive. So's Australia. When it comes to international sporting competitions we're one of the most competitive countries going. Does that mean we feel the need to fake our victories? No. Why fake something that you can do anyway. Face it, they had the means, and they had no reason to fake it. Yes, they probably could have, but that doesn't mean they did.


Justice 4 Pat Richard

quote:

---

However, there are still possibilities that they may have

---

Of course, there are 'possibilities'.
You can say that about absolutely anything.
But give some evidence of it.

If you have any actual evidence of the moon landing being a hoax, please share it.

As for the discovery lift-off - disappointing?? Are you insane?

This program has been grounded for years. It has now had a successful launch, which will hopefully mean that the billions of dollars worth of add-ons built for the space station will now get delivered - you know, all the cargo that no other nation's space program can deliver? To say that the shuttle program casts doubt on NASA's ability to have gotten to the moon, when no other nation or group in the world has a comparable program is just downright silly.


From my understanding, the debris that was noted is not unexpected and not a worry. It is only because of the huge focus on safety and the disaster of the shuttle Columbia that it is even being noted. Things are in place to help ensure that if there are any issues, they will be dealt with.

IMO the Discovery launch was a triumph all around.
Perfection is a myth.

(Edited by DL-44 on 07-27-2005 17:15)

quote:

---

IMO the Discovery launch was a triumph all around.
Perfection is a myth.

---

Amen to that.

Into the unknown, shall we triumpantly go!

quote:

---

Face it, they had the means, and they had no reason to fake it. Yes, they probably could have, but that doesn't mean they did.

---

Whether they had the means is questionable. Whether a government would fake something is a guarantee, and there were plenty of reasons to do so. But as you say, it doesn't mean they did.

quote:

---

DL: From my understanding, the debris that was noted is not unexpected and not a worry.

---

Yes, they made a big deal out of nothing. Typical media play.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Here's a must-read (serious) article for all who are interested in the moon landings:
Of course we went to the Moon
A defense of the Lunar Landings...

/TwoD

Yannah: Yes, please, if you have any hard evidence to prove that it was a hoax, we'd love to see it. Do you have anything other than speculation and a desire to believe the worst?

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

quote:

---

Into the unknown, shall we triumpantly go!

---

...to militarize and pilfer resources. How exciting. And doubly exciting is that we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill.

Shouldn't we fix our own house before pillaging another?


Suho, to play the devil's advocate, we don't have the proof outright, but we do have a pretty sound motive, and in a court of law that counts for a lot. Consider the following, specifically the first few points.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-28-2005 10:02)

Ram: Motive does not a crime make. And what is this about not having proof outright? You mean we don't have proof at all, don't you? Clever how you stick the "outright" on there to make it seem like, yeah, we have proof, it's just not outright.

I did read the points in that website, but they do not convince. You are right--none of those points are proof. They are just speculation designed to plant seeds of doubt.

I suppose this could be argued back and forth for quite some time with no resolution. Until I see convincing proof that it was a hoax (and so far I have seen none), I see no reason to doubt the moon landing.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

(Edited by Suho1004 on 07-28-2005 11:13)

Hey, moon shadows are not fake trust me !

Reiso : Sadly it seems that many Americans have been lured again by another stupid promise (a clean war, anybody remembers ?). Bush's plan to send men to Mars is just plain stupid. Almost all scientists agreed it would be a gigantic waste of money. I'm, as usual, stunned by how misinforming American medias are :/

----
If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

quote:

---

to militarize and pilfer resources. How exciting. And doubly exciting is that we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill.

---

Yes.

Since time immorial, it has been so.

"What, you think, you get it for free?" - Hall & Oates, Maneater.

That doesn't change our Manifest Destiny - "The stars are ours!" - Isaac Asimov.

quote:

---

Clever how you stick the "outright" on there to make it seem like, yeah, we have proof, it's just not outright.

---

Add to that, the evidence to the contrary. The evidence that we have, actually supports that we went to the moon.

Yeah yeah, but you'd think after all the flights into space that by now they'd have had the process nailed down a bit, yes perfection is a myth but near-perfection isn't. It's not like NASA don't have enough money to spend!

quote:

---

yes perfection is a myth but near-perfection isn't.

---

And it would appear that the Discovery shuttle launch was just that - near-perfection.

As for the points on that site - I read the list the first time you psoted it, and again: nothing more than vague speculation.

The evidence that we do have is supportive of us going to the moon.

When there is evidence to the contrary, as opposed to "well, it was good politically, so we must've faked it!" kind of nonsense....I'd love to look into it.

My view of government corruption and conspiracy doesn't seem to be much different from yours Ram.

But there is just *nothing* out there that I have seen that supports the moonlanding being a hoax.

"The Sun is turning arround the earth"

"The earth is flat"

"We never went to the moon"


That's all the same kind of non scientifical rubbish people tend to believe one day or another. Ofcourse you are free to believe whatever suits you but don not try to bend the facts untill they fit in to the things you believe in.
I don't think that back 1969 the technology was advanced enough to mock-up the moonlanding. Did you ever took a look at special effects from that generation blockbuster movies? Did you ??

I rest my case.

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

quote:

---

Suho: Clever how you stick the "outright" on there to make it seem like, yeah, we have proof, it's just not outright.

---

LOL. You got me.

quote:

---

Rinswind 2th: I don't think that back 1969 the technology was advanced enough to mock-up the moonlanding.

---

Technology was not advanced enough to mock the moon landing, but it was advanced enough to actually go there? hehe

quote:

---

DL: But there is just *nothing* out there that I have seen that supports the moonlanding being a hoax.

---

While most of the "proof" can and has been ruled out as scientific ignorance, there is one piece of footage from a documentary I have seen that is pretty interesting. Most of the documentary (A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon) is bunk and actually quite humorous.

View it here (wmv). Sorry for the low quality.

What do you make of that, huh?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

errr....

what do I make of a bad narration stating that certain things happen....but - again - without any actual evidence of it happening (other than their assertion and some film clips that are random and vague enough to be meaningless)...?

Not much

quote:

---

Technology was not advanced enough to mock the moon landing, but it was advanced enough to actually go there? hehe

---

While it does sound funny to say that, it is also relatively true.
Some of the things that would need to be done, assuming that the all the footage that we have is to be the evidence, would be extremely difficult to fake even today. There is very clearly a lack of gravity in the footage we see of Astronauts navigating the surface of the moon. Did we have an entire sound stage with reduced gravity?

It's possible...

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Technology was not advanced enough to mock the moon landing, but it was advanced enough to actually go there? hehe

---

To give a somewhat fantastic example, think of Lord of the Rings. Up until relatively recently, the technology did not exist to make the movies that Peter Jackson created. Up until that point, it would have been far easier to just travel to Middle Earth and film those scenes as they actually happened.

Ridiculous, I know, since Middle Earth and all those creatures don't actually exist, but the same principle applies.

In other words it is most likely that the technology to travel to another world, where conditions are far different from our own, will come before the technology to actually recreate those conditions (at least on film) here.

Gah. I didn't get enough sleep last night. I don't know if I'm making sense.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Earth from a distance:




Earth from a low orbit:




Earth from a low orbit through a porthole:




Yeah. Totally has me fooled. And amazing how they kept that cropped field of view from changing at approximately 74,000 kph.

But it makes you wonder why none of all those evil geniuses thought of simply pointing the camera at a photo of the Earth rather than staging the 8th-grader home-video special effects.

Not that this is directly related to the discussion at hand, but the recent shuttle launch was discussed, so I thought this might be interesting reading: Intense Hunt for Signs of Damage Could Raise Problems of Its Own

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

There is a Penn & Teller episode of Bullsh%T all about conspiracy theories, in which the moon landing features quite prominantly, I suggest you all hunt it down through various means and give it a watch.

quote:

---

amazing how they kept that cropped field of view from changing at approximately 74,000 kph.

---

What if they weren't going 74,00 kph, but just in a synchronous orbit.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I am not going to argue either way on this for one very significant reason - to me, the evidence (un-mountain-like as it is) that the moon landings were a hoax is arguably as compelling as the evidence that it was achieved in reality.

True - most of the arguments that it was a hoax are fairly easy to debunk, but unless you can tell me for an absolute fact that Diana was- or was not- not topped by the British monarchy, then you couldn't really sway me definitely in either direction on this issue either.

I think I'll wait for it all to come out in the wash. I can say with confidence that whatever the outcome, my reaction will be something like "Really? Wow. Was that one sugar or two in your tea?"

Axle, my honourable countryman and fellow asylum-dweller, were you barely aware that your comedic post would lead back to this oft-revisited debate, or did you intend to surreptitiously slip this into the Ozone fish tank just to see the bubbles?

I must say that if I had visited the moon, despite years (yes, it is an old idea - though some might argue that it is not widely held) of putting up with people accusing me of taking part in a great hoax, and somebody asked me to swear on a Bible that I did do what has been claimed - I doubt I'd have much trouble doing so.

Then again, if I had taken part in a great hoax like that, I doubt I would have any qualms about swearing on the Bible either, so it signifies nothing at all that not one moon visitor has been willing to do this in front of a camera.

In fact - such is the nature of the great mis-information ping-pong game of conspiracy and counter-conspiracy debate that the only way we'll ever really settle this argument between the vociferous minority and the trusting majority, is if we all take a long space walk and have a look at the landing sites (or potentially, lack of), and see for ourselves.

I personally have not been to the moon, so I cannot say for definite that anyone has been to the moon. I haven't been to India either, but I've seen pictures on the telly (and met a large number of people who claim to be from there).

It is probably obvious to all by now that I have no idea where I'm going with this. I thought I did, but now I'm not so sure.

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I saw this documentary once that attempted to prove that the building of an ancient weapon/device (that could lift ships, spin them about, break their backs, and ultimately and effectively sink them) was entirely plausible, only ended up proving that they, themselves, were unable to replicate what may or may not have been a real invention!

To be honest the (incidentally, and completely irrelevantly female) engineer heading up the construction seemed to have utterly no idea what the **** she was doing anyway, ignored advice from people who built cranes for a living, and approached the whole problem in an obscure and impractical manner - but this makes no difference to my point.

To attempt to prove that something was not possible (like the faking of the moon landings) rather than prove that it was not actually achieved, is pointless. You can only prove that you are unable to replicate an alleged fake.

Besides, did this guy start out with a 'faking' budget any where near what NASA could have commanded at the time?

Um...

I'll just get my coat. Don't get up, I'll see myself out.

(blast those work-place farewell booze-ups) *hiccup*

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

quote:

---

What if they weren't going 74,00 kph, but just in a synchronous orbit.

---

Well, a geosynchronous orbit would have required them to be at an altitude of about 35,000 km (you can't simply go slower or you'd fall), which would have put them directly within the very radiation belts they supposedly couldn't penetrate in the first place. In fact, it would have put them in the outer Van Allen belt and required them to pass through its most intense region of 14,500?19,000 km.

Incidentally, I'm surprised no one's mentioned the range reflector placed by the astronauts that's been used by multiple observatories since its installation to measure the distance to the moon.

Though I'm sure the skeptics would say its placement was made possible by a secret, parallel program that developed an intelligent rover that took it there and aligned it so NASA would have "evidence" the astronauts were actually there, though NASA seems never to have made a big deal out of it. And round and round we go ...



(Edited by Wes on 07-30-2005 02:11)

quote:

---

Axle, my honourable countryman and fellow asylum-dweller, were you barely aware that your comedic post would lead back to this oft-revisited debate, or did you intend to surreptitiously slip this into the Ozone fish tank just to see the bubbles?

---

I'm scared....and i want my mummy !

I must say, the response is fascinating, the whole 'did they,didnt they' debate gets you thinking, although i personally think people dont argue the case because they honestly believe it never happened, but merely for the fact it creates such a stir of emotions that it becomes entertaining.

No Sig ?

quote:

---

i personally think people dont argue the case because they honestly believe it never happened, but merely for the fact it creates such a stir of emotions that it becomes entertaining.

---

In this case, you are correct. Well, at least I don't really believe it, although I do have some lingering doubts.

Wes: Good points, although I am sure there is some sort of refutation to be made. They really didn't have to be in a full geosychronous orbit because the lack of sych would not have been noticed in the short timeframe they were filming.

As regards to the video I posted, why would they be faking a shot like that? Perhaps it was taken out of context by the narrator, but I was unable to find this video in any archive online. What else could they have been doing?

In any case, narration aside, the date of the video was a date in which they should have been halfway to the moon, but when they pan out at the very end and open the lens, you can clearly see the earth is very close. What's all that about?

Perhaps NASA feels themselves above having to explain these loony conspiracy theories, but why don't they just do it? Prove it to us once and for all. Does not the technology exist to take pictures of the landing sites? Why have they not explained the inconsistencies in the accounts of the astronauts? Since we allegedly went to the moon 36 years ago, why have not so much as left orbit since? Thirty six years and billions in funding and nothing but robots and probes? WTF? Waste of money if you ask me considering all the problems here.

So who does space exploration benefit? Who makes a profit from it? What is the use of knowledge if we can't even take care of problems here at home? Why was the Apollo program the only one to 'succeed' at taking us to the moon? I still think there may be something to the distraction from revolt (Vietnam) and/or geopolitical factors. All speculation of course, but it is sound motive along with the $$$ handed over to certin sectors. Funny thing is, the same people making the equipment for NASA and our "giant leap" were at the same time killing on a mass scale over in Vietnam with their "defense" products. When it comes to men who run giant companies which manufacture death, one should trust nothing about them. Lots of questions which the authorities shun under the guise that they are ridiculous.

Questions like those were not always considered so ridiculous. The populations in the early 1900s was well informed and aware of the banking cartel, the growing MI complex, and all that other fun stuff, and they used to question government a lot more. At one point it all stopped. Probably in the early 50s when our schools were officially handed over to government.

Maybe one day we'll know for certain, but until I see the evidence, hardcore irrefutable evidence, there will always remain a seed of doubt in me. Government has never given us any good reason to believe they are honest, so why believe them fully on this account aside from wanting to believe?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-30-2005 22:14)

Ram do you trust your own eyes? Or even your own brain? Or maybe your own soul? Do you even believe you do exist or are you only the anoying voice in my head, is it even my head you are in or are you inside your own head? Are you born ignorant or are you ment to be some kind of concrete block born in the wrong kind of body? How do you even know we all do exist? Or even me? did Jezus die on the cross 2000 thousand years ago or are we waiting for him to come tomorrow?

Don't even even try to answer all these questions. Let our philosofers do so.
So you have changed have you? From an narrow minded militant right wing guy who wanted tom bomb iraq before breakfast in the morning to an left wing anti governemental conspiracy theorist? So do you feel the world around you has improved? What does the world around you feel about it?

Let me tell you, You still don't check your facts, you still keep digging up irrelevant shit and you still don't know when to stop.
This post started as a fun post and now look what has been made of it. Then cross out all your own posts an the reactions people posted on it...see what is left.


Ram if you have any intelligent reaction on this let me know by email or so, if not don't bother.
Rinswind2nd@gmail.com

Sorry guys for getting personal, but sometimes i feel only the blunt axe is getting through.

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

(Edited by Rinswind 2th on 07-30-2005 22:55)

So......Nice weather we got, hope it lasts !

No Sig ?

quote:

---

Since we allegedly went to the moon 36 years ago, why have not so much as left orbit since?

---

I think this can be answered by looking back at your own reason for thinking this is a hoax.

At that time, it was important enough for us politically to take the risks and spend the time money and effort to get there.

What reason do we have now to continue taking the huge risks to get people to the moon, and spend the amazing amounts of money it would take to do so?
When we have more pressing reasons, and perhaps when we have further developments and improvements on such things like the space station and the shuttle program, then it will be worth undertaking such a trip again.

Rinswind: I am just asking rhetorical questions, and there was no need for your hot-tempered response. I do not believe we faked the moon landing, just saying there is doubt in my mind. Ever hear of entertaining two different points of view without really commiting to either?

As I said to Suho back on page 2: "Suho, to play the devil's advocate..." That, and I wasn't taking this thread all that seriously.

quote:

---

Ram do you trust your own eyes? Or even your own brain?

---

Do you always trust your own perception? Do you trust those who have a handle on your perception?

Yes, I have changed. Is that a problem? You think I'll feel ashamed if you tout out my history? Go right ahead.

HEY EVERYONE, I WAS A RIGHT-WINGER!!

*looks around* Oh my God, seems everyone already knew that.

Just an FYI: If you feel the need for labels a more accurate depiction would be an anti-state, free-market, Libertarian stance, not left wing.

quote:

---

This post started as a fun post and now look what has been made of it.

---

I was still having fun until I read your post. If I came across the wrong way, to you or anyone else, I apologize for any miscommunication. I did not pick up any tension, anger or other warning signs from anyone before your post.

I will not apologize for posting my thoughts freely though.

As far as emailing you, for what purpose? I never did understand this. Is this like the Internet version of calling someone out? You don't like me, you've made it clear, conversation over. That ok with you?

quote:

---

So......Nice weather we got, hope it lasts !

---

Well, it got rather warm in here all of a sudden.

DL: Thank you. Makes sense.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-31-2005 01:52)

We went to the Moon, to prove that we could.

But to actually make such a "regular event", we need more than just a rocket that can get a few astronauts there, with a bit of equiptment. For a permanent base on the Moon, and to make use of the Helium-3 there, we need a reliable, working method to get into space, and a Space Station that can handle the continuous traffic.

And to be quite blunt, after the fall of the USSR, the main threat was diminished, and "certain" eyes turned from space to other endeavours.

Then we had a number of Space Shuttle accidents.

Lack of interest ~ lack of funding + a number of public calamities involving the (rather out-dated, I may add) technology that we are currently using to reach space = a rather "cold" atmosphere to continue manned space explorations.

I believe the true colonization of Space will begin, when business sees a monetary reason to do so, just like it has always been. True, some exploration has to be done, from Government and true explorers first, to pave the way - and that we have done. Providing there is not some earth-shaking incidents in the next 50 years, I believe that Big Business will start casting its greedy eyes towards the Heavens.

quote:

---

As regards to the video I posted, why would they be faking a shot like that?

---

I don't see any solid evidence they were even faking a shot. In the final scene where we supposedly see that the Earth is very close in the window, all I see is a bright, overexposed light. Looks like they changed the iris in the camera to be able to shoot in the dimmer light of the craft, causing the much brighter (distant) Earth to blow out the exposure in that area of the scene.

In fact, I don't see anything the narrator says is going on. Creating a fake shadow on the Earth where it's supposedly night? I don't see any mask. I don't see anything change when the narrator says they adjust the mask. And saying the cameraman tried to pan away when someone's arm gets in the scene? Looks like the camera shaking just as it had been the whole damn time.

Everything the narrator points out is a speculative, highly biased interpretation of the scene.

Anyway, a far more interesting aspect of this argument is the question of why we haven't been back, which is already being discussed, so please carry on. (And to anyone who asks the question, let me ask: Can you give me a good reason we should have continued the moon landings? What further purpose was there?)

quote:

---

Can you give me a good reason we should have continued the moon landings?

---

I think it would be nice to have another moon landing, so that the people of today, in particular the young people of today, could for themselves experience and be part of what, at the time, was considered to (if you excuse the pun) out of this world.

It would be interesting to see how far we have come technology wise by comparing how we would approach a moon landing today as opposed to how we supposedly went to the moon in the '69.

To give todays generation the chance to experience such a feat, would be astronomical (sorry ), to say the least.

Perhaps when they are up there place some webcams about so we can keep an eye out for the little green men....

Oh, and i have the deeds to prove i own 1 acre of the moon Lunar Property

No Sig ?

quote:

---

axleclarkeuk said:

I think it would be nice to have another moon landing, so that the people of today, in particular the young people of today, could for themselves experience and be part of what, at the time, was considered to (if you excuse the pun) out of this world.

---

Uh, as far as I know, NASA generally does do things because they would be "nice."

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Mm.

That's got to be the absolute worst reasoning I've ever heard...

Ok, is any one in here able to find what the distance of a step in the moon supposed to be without reffering to the landing. It should be some mitres considering the mass of the astronaut, the distance of the moon from the earth and the acceleration.
However, the step taken by Lance Armstrong doesn't look that long.
Does this count?
BTW, I take back what I said earlier about the Discovery lift off, I just got taken by those stupid media reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Edited by Yannah on 08-01-2005 05:55)

No, extensive research was done into the actual walking and movment of the Astronauts (it seems to be one of the "favorite" areas to pick on, apparently).

What was found out, is that one cannot reproduce the gait that the Astronauts had in a Earth-like gravity well (well, one could probably do a 3D computer graphic simulation, but they couldn't do that back then).

quote:

---

Does this count?

---

Does it count for what?

yes, it certainly does count as yet another page full of nonsensical fantasy without an ounce of substantiation.

Speculation about how long a step an astronaut should take on the moon vs. what someone thinks it looks like his step was is so irrelevant it's just silly.

Video proves with about as much certainty as we could ask for that the environment the astronauts were in had exceptionally low gravity and a lack of atmosphere (the way the dust behaves when thrown up by the tires of the rover, for example).

(Preface: I currently can't get to the link Yannah provided.)

Yannah:

1. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the distance from the earth to the moon has zero bearing on how long a step on the moon would be.
2. The biggest factor in the length of a step would be how far one tried to step. (Go on, take a step. Now take a bigger step. Now leap as far as you can.)
3. Lance Armstrong, as far as I know, has never been to the moon.

quote:

---

3. Lance Armstrong, as far as I know, has never been to the moon.

---

Didn't even catch that one

Now that he's retired, that might be his next goal though...

quote:

---

Wes said:

1. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the distance from the earth to the moon has
zero bearing on how long a step on the moon would be.

---

I never said

quote:

---

Wes said:

Lance
Armstrong, as far as I know, has never been to the moon.

---

Yes, but using the F=(GMm)/r^2 people should be able to find that. What's his mass on the moon, the mass of the moon and the distance?
Sorry, meant to say Neil Armstrong.

Please read!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Edited by Yannah on 08-02-2005 03:57)

quote:

---

Yes, but using the F=(GMm)/r^2 people should be able to find that. What's his mass on the moon, the mass of the moon and the distance?

---

All of which - once again - has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

quote:

---

Please read!

---

Yannah, we've covered all of this nonsense many times now.

Do yourself a big favor - either find something that has some actual evidence, or stop posting about it.

Throwing out the same old crap is pointless and tiresome.

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-02-2005 04:22)

How about you give me evidence supportig your belief?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh ... Why do I let myself get into this?

Yannah said:

quote:

---

It should be some mitres considering the mass of the astronaut, the distance of the moon from the earth and the acceleration.

---

That wasn't you?

and your point is?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perpetually over your head.

quote:

---

How about you give me evidence supportig your belief?

---

Are you in the same conversation as the rest of us?

The FACTS (as opposed to 'the beliefs') say that we went to the moon.
Several links have been posted that explain how and why the FACTS state that it happened. These sites have also explained exactly why the "evidence" presented by the conspiracy theorists is not evidence at all, but is simply ignorance and speculation.

This leaves the situation very clear: if you "beleive" that the facts presented are wrong, *you* need to be able to explain why, and provide evidence.

quote:

---

Yes, but using the F=(GMm)/r^2 people should be able to find that. What's his mass on the moon, the mass of the moon and the distance?

---

As DL has mentioned, that really depends on how the person in question is trying to walk.
Try this little experiment yourself (hey, it even works in Earth's gravity!) - take big steps. Take bounding steps. Take little steps.

Are they different from one another?

Now, go swimming (can you swim? If not, then go wading). Take big steps in the water. Take bounding steps in the water. Take little steps in the water.

Are they different from one another?

Now add on a backpack, with some rocks (or other weight) - and repeat the experiments.
Notice how you have to actually move your body, and notice what parts have to do what movements, to do the above steps.

Now, get a copy of the complete moon video footage. I have one from National Geographic. It is pretty nice.
There is one particular section, where it shows one of the Astronauts jumping. Notice the movements of the legs, especially the knees - this is important.

The knees hardly bend, but the height of the jump is astounding!

Try this on earth. See if you can reach this distance, with hardly bending your knees. Do it without the backpack, so that things will be roughly equal.

You will find that you will not be able to come close to the height that the Astronaut reaches.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-02-2005 23:21)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The FACTS (as opposed to 'the beliefs') say that we went to the moon.Several
links have been posted that explain how and why the FACTS state that it
happened. These sites have also explained exactly why the "evidence" presented
by the conspiracy theorists is not evidence at all, but is simply ignorance and
speculation.

---

Some of these "facts" were made by NASA themselves, how can you consider them as that?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recommend changing the subject ...

Thus: Anyone else bothered by this Sharpie Mini commercial? How is it exactly that only the marker defies gravity?

I'm guessing this comes from the old "heavy boots" logic.

(And another moon-gravity story.)

Yannah -

Please go back to the links that Wes posted earlier.

Read them.

If you have questions, if there are things you don't understand, feel free to ask for clarification.

There is not even the slightesst bit of credible evidence supporting the moon landings being a hoaz. None.
All of the available evidence says that it happened.

If you don't feel that is true, then you are not understanding the evidence. So please - re-read it, and ask whatever questions you might have.

If you're simply going to stick your head up your ass and continue to say you think it is a hoax despite the evidence, that's certainly your choice....but if that's the case you can save everyone else the trouble and we'll just drop the conversation altogether.

{{edit -

wow. Thanks, Wes, for knocking my confidence in humanity down another notch...

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-03-2005 03:43)

Actually, after reading that last link, I feel a lot better about humanity -

quote:

---

Out of 168 people taking the quiz, 48 missed the question.

---

That is less than 1/3 - not bad.

I bet they mostly belong to the religious right!