Did We Really Go To The Moon

more mmmm

Wet1, wet1, wet1.
Yet again you seem to have the right answer for everything. And yet again, all I read from you is politics, economics and graphs, all of which come from NASA websites. What was it that was once said "those who control information have the ultimate control". I think it is time to start putting away the year 10 science book and (as I've said before) HAVE A REAL THINK.
Firstly, where did NASA test the Lunar landers? In a huge dome full of deep space (on some earth desert)? On the moon itself (seems logical enough)? I'm afraid the theory and the practicality are two almost mutually exclusive events here. No testing, and you can throw the theory out the window.
Secondly, what does the world have to compare the 800+ moon rocks with to make absolute sure they came from the moon? Was it from the freak 1940's moon landings? Funnilly enough, without a precedent, how are we to really know? I know!!!! GO BACK. With technology 30+years more advanced we should have it quite streamlined and less expensive now. Seeing as we've already been there, and there is little to no research costs necessary, it's just a matter of building and sending, right (everything down to the flight orbit path and retrograde rocket burns is surely still on the drawing boards)??? It just seems the "too costly" bit is becoming more illogical every day. And don't tell me the US govt has the bean counters in over this!!!! The US govt seems quite happy to mobilise billions of dollars to feed wars without enemies yet unable to allow the new generation of science another peice of history. mmmm.
Thirdly, I believe the reason we don't see huge alien armies taking over the world is that they have the same problem as we do. They can't get life out of their own atmosphere. It would stand to reason that somewhere in the universe there is a more advance civilization than us - yet with all their technology, they are stuck on planet X with vivid imaginations like ours.

Bugger it, we were just put on earth to build houses...and keep life going. At least mmmm is starting to see the logic.

I have a site to look at too (clever of me, yes). It goes into the science of how the landing was an impossible event to achieve. I know you love the theory so here's some of it:-

internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney

Now have a good think - there is too much more to this than meets the eye than to let it pass for another 2 generations.
 
His site does a very poor job of convincing.

Going further into the site I ran upon another unconvincing topic of trying to disprove dinosaurs existed and a little later we find the reason. All this is set up to try a give shot at you believing creationism is the only answer. I am afraid he raises more questions than he answers. Those questions reflect directly back to a lack of study on the subject and an agenda to be pushed. More the agenda as the evidence is slanted to try and support it.

Nice try though.
 
dont believe-several of your earlier post make reference to not only not getting to the moon but not even getting out of our atmosphere
is this correct?
because if you can get access to a 2m ametuer(ham) radio-you can actually talk to shuttle crewmembers as they orbit(complete with ariel azimuth angles

and of course the lovely movieshots of the crew working in the avionics bay with the doors open-showing the earth in the background

oh yes the creationists sites-ho hum-have you been to the electric universe sites yet,or perhaps the hollow earth lot are more to your liking
 
dontbelieve,

The link you gave is just more of the same so called "evidence" that has been scientifically refuted by countless individuals, most of whom have no association with NASA at all.

When I first watched the Fox special on TV I must admit I was a little blown away, but I wasn't convinced because of my interest in photography. I figured if they'd got something important wrong, they obviously hadn't really bothered to research everything for themselves before presenting it. Shortly afterwards, I watched it with a friend of mine who is a bit of a 3D modelling guru, and he picked up on something as well, which means he wasn't completely convinced either. Nevertheless, we still had a long conversation about about how it would be possible, theoretically, to stage a moon landing. The fact that governments can not be trusted combined with the political climate at the time of the landing, gave weight to the possibility.

If you don't know what I'm talking about with regards to photography or 3D modelling, then think "no stars" and "astronaut in a shadow". I wont bother going into it though because 1) hundreds of other people already have and 2) it wont make any difference to you.

Most of the debunking sites actually challenge you to go and perform the experiments yourself. The ones you can perform on Earth anyway, and they even tell you how to go about it. Like some of us here, they realize that nothing else will convince you that the claims of conspiracy theorists are nothing more than sensationalist unscientific garbage. Actually, I need to correct myself. Sometimes people wont even believe if the truth is starting them right in the face. They want to believe what they want to believe, and are thus beyond the reach of logic.

I probably haven't added anything new to this thread other than to issue a challenge. Humble yourself (as any wise man should do in his search for truth), and allow yourself to consider the possibility that we actually did go to the moon. Treat is as a hypothesis then set out to prove or disprove it. Then, if you only even conduct one experiment yourself, or come to understand a single thing that is incorrect in the assertions of those who believe it was a hoax, you have made some progress. If you still hold on passionately to your belief without questioning everything else as well (which at that point you would be obligated to do) then unfortunately you are beyond help and further discussions with you would become futile.
 
Re: more mmmm

Originally posted by dontbelieve
Thirdly, I believe the reason we don't see huge alien armies taking over the world is that they have the same problem as we do. They can't get life out of their own atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Waaaa? How did you come up with this idea?
 
more humdrum

I realise I will never be in a position to convince anyone of my "opinions", alas I fail to see anything other than the same old rhetoric on these forums.
I'll add a couple more titbits then I suppose I'll have to stop writing in because Rav is finding me a bit hard to take. Plus Rav, I was thinking this way a year or so before the Fox special aired - pleases note none of what I have ever said relates to this particular show.

* If Japan are going to make an effort to send persons to the moon, why can't NASA, in the interest of the science, give Japan all it knows and understands about getting people to the moon? They could outsource Cape Canaveral for a period of time. If the American govt can't see fit to pony up the dough, and their is a willing other partner, why can't this occur? Surely Japan could give the US a few billion in exchange for some handy tips.
* If wet1 saw the launch of the Apollo fights, did you keep watching for its entire journey. If so, there would have been serious squinting going on.

Maybe I am a seer or warlock, but one thing I do believe in is the awesome, unforgiving power of nature. And not in my lifetime or any lifetime evolving after this point in time, will we ever be able to ride AGAINST it. Funnily enough, this will also be the time it takes to get back to the moon - certainly the way the scientific community sees it.

Give it all a few years and heck, society may just start viewing things from alternate angles by other sources. But this simply won't happen, because the true believers will always abide by the text book and endeavour to put all that question at bay. Its a Nasty trait of human nature that occurs when so much is riding on it. But then again, Sci-fi flicks need at least the notion in place so that they have some credibility, Right? Money, money.

Cheerio.
 
I was in school at the time of the Apollo launches. We would go outside and stand in the school yard to see them go up. Then we could go inside and see it and the news coverage on tv. I saw everyone of the first launches go up from the Cape.

You had made a point of the referring to NASA info as being the source control in controlling opinions and beliefs, dontbelieve. While I understand your point, to me it is like asking a mechanic to repair your vehicle but not to use the manufacturer's info to do it. Who better knows their material than the one that sets the standards and tests their equiptment to see that it meets their criteria? Or for that matter who controls and moniters their project?

You bring up an interesting point with the info share. I wonder what would be their price for the sharing? Or even if Japan would want it. It is after all kind of old.

Again I find myself agreeing with your statement of nature and it's awesomeness. I see many examples of such, including the hurricane I find that I am fixing to have to run from.

Unfortunately, the world does revolve around money. It is what makes things happen. It is a fact, sometimes something I wish was not so.
 
It's not that I'm finding you hard to take dontbelieve. You are entitled to your opinions, as is everybody. What I do find incomprehensible is why people keep presenting evidence that has been scientifically refuted. In other words, proven to be based on incorrect assumptions or the absence of the neccesary technical knowledge, which results in the evidence being seriously flawed, in which case it is not evidence at all.

So, while people are definitely free to think what they want, I am the kind of person who feels that people also have a responsibility to speak when incorrect information is presented, especially in a public forum that is likely frequented by a number of impressionable individuals. To stand back and watch misinformation propogate itself when you can do something about it is a grave sin in my opinion.

If your opinions were formed based on thinking you've done on your own, then I wont jump on you for it. But if you point people in the direction of the kind of unscientific material that can be found by following the links in your post, I do feel it's my duty, as would most other people I think, to say something about it. I would hope that people would correct me if I did something like that.

There's nothing wrong with your general philosophies mate. In fact, I like them. But separating them from the ideas of nutty conspiracy theorists might be a good idea :)
 
Something just clicked, and I have to share it. Sorry!

How many of you guys have seen the Australian movie "The Dish".
I was just thinking about it, and I realized something. Funny how I haven't thought of it until now. I'm sure somebody else already has, but you're gonna hear it here anyway :)

"The Dish" is about the major role the Parkes Observatory (in Australia) played in the Apollo 11 mission. In addition to receiving "voice communications and spacecraft and biomedical telemetry" throughout the mission, it also received the first television pictures, which were subsequently sent to the rest of the world.

Of course, even though it was based on a true story, it was still a movie, so if you feel inclined, you can find the strictly factual information by following the link below.

http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/introduction.html

Three separate tracking stations were utilized during the Apollo 11 mission, so you might want to ask yourself what they were tracking and where it was. Reading up just a little on radio physics drove the point home for me.

If anyone comes out and says "that doesn't prove anything" I am going to cry. It's simply a little something I felt was worth adding to the discussion :)
 
maybe

Thanks for those replys. I'm just simply interested in the difference between ideas and actuality. I still do and will always believe that the idea and the practicality of the moon landings are seperate entities - without true test cases on earth, its still seems far fetched . Alas, no point continuing on in that vain, I suppose I'll just sit back and wait.

But wet1, are you sure that it was historical science of the highest order that you were seeing, or were you simply swept up in the emotion of it all. Human emotions, insecurities and self defence mechanisms are some of the nasty, money driven ways that human nature deals with balance - natures bad stuff isn't just tornadoes and earthquakes. I'm just getting a little annoyed that as the moon landings go further in to the annals of science history, the more abstract the notion becomes. And, as far as Japan not taking up US help - if it ain't broke, use it - it worked the first few times.

So rav (howdy buddy), is your idea to stick all people who believe against the "known" in straight jackets and stamp them as societies outcasts. There are so many conspiracies about (mostly money and/or power related), then if you don't believe they exist, you are more likely a perpetraitor. What I worry about is the source of known science about outer space and quantum theories seems to stem from a base source which no one person/business/state/country can possibly match the resources of. What critique can there ever be?

Just a footnote.
I've driven a car, I know they move.
I've been in a plane, I know they fly.
I've scale a 60+ storey building, I know they are stable.
I've never been to the moon, and neither has anyone else who is ever likely to read these forums.

adieu.
 
So rav (howdy buddy), is your idea to stick all people who believe against the "known" in straight jackets and stamp them as societies outcasts.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. If we lived in a world where people blindly believed something just because they always had, or because everyone else does, or because governments wanted them to, it would be a nightmare. People should question everything. As my favourite english teacher said to me years ago "Never believe anything you hear, and only half of what you read, until you have checked the facts for yourself and applied your common sense". I've always remembered that.

As far as the moon landing is concerned, there is nothing wrong with questioning what we've been told about it. But there is overwhelming evidence to support the fact that it actually happened. On the other hand, the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists is seriously flawed, yet you can't get them to admit it. This brings me to the conclusion that maybe they ARE only a few steps away from being placed in straight jackets. However, I wouldn't say you were :)

There are so many conspiracies about (mostly money and/or power related), then if you don't believe they exist, you are more likely a perpetraitor.
Click to expand...

Conspiracies are real, and so are the people involved in them. There have been some shocking and unsettling examples of such behaviour throughout history. Do I trust the government? Certainly not. I don't trust anyone with power. There might be exceptions, but as a general statement I'll stand by it.

What I worry about is the source of known science about outer space and quantum theories seems to stem from a base source which no one person/business/state/country can possibly match the resources of. What critique can there ever be?
Click to expand...

America may have been the first to put a man on the moon, but as we know, the Russians almost beat them to it. The Russians knew atleast as much as anyone else about the problems associated with getting men into space and subsequently landing them on the moon. I tend to trust in the fact that if it wasn't possible, they would have exposed that fact in quite a dramatic fashion. They would have been watching very closely, and who would have had a better reason to pick it apart. NASA would have to had to have gone to almost unfathomable lengths to pull of that hoax successfully (personally I believe it would have been impossible). As many have said, it would have just been easier to actually go there, which I believe they did.

As for Quantum Theory and every other branch of science, you have people all over the world, with different political and philosophical ideas all working towards the same goal. Developing a complete theory of the universe. No one person, business, state or even country controls it. The resources that are available are shared. There's the concept of objectivity and accountability in action. What critique can there ever be? The one that might come from any one of those people, and actually has many many times. Scientists don't always agree, which sometimes even results in long drawn out fewds. Often those fewds result in further scientific breakthroughs, which may or may not also be contested. People are held accountable, and they are kept honest. So personally, I think you might be worrying a little too much.

But to question everything is a good idea. It will probably annoy some people, but you'll learn more because of it, and you'll often be able to make an informed decision when it comes to deciding what you do and don't trust in.
 
Last edited:
The Russians knew atleast as much as anyone else about the problems associated with getting men into space and subsequently landing them on the moon. I tend to trust in the fact that if it wasn't possible, they would have exposed that fact in quite a dramatic fashion.
Click to expand...
Rav, I believe the conspiracy theorists believe that the ruskies were actually in on it. I did see a show called "to the moon" which showed an untimely launch incident that blew the entire Russian launch facility to bits - I hope that was all above board!!!!

I know I keep harping on about nature and its power, and probably baffling people along the way as to how it relates to moon landings but I've managed to come up with a similar type scenario:-

15-20 yrs back, scientists around the world where showingly gleeful about finding the gene that caused A.I.D.S and were now within 5-10 yrs of a cure. People clapped and marvelled at the feat that up to that stage was a glimmer of hope for sufferers. 20 yrs on, and medical science is still harping on about prevention and maintenance being the only real viable "cure". A.I.D.S was possibly "introduced" into human nature as a way to control "unnatural" acts. The fact that it is wider spead is simply a serious side-effect. By trying to erradicate the problem and giving hope for a short term fix-up, the medical researchers probably didn't realise that nature never gave humankind the tools to fight the problem. Rather, nature allows prevention - which is designed to fight the source of the problem, without delving anywhere near the necessary lengths it would take to cure it (Much like contolling CFC's and the like).
This is not a situation science can fake. It is known that people still have the AIDS virus - a point that cannot be refuted as eyes can detect. The point I'm therefore trying to make, is that you cannot ride AGAINST nature, you can only ride with it. Once you leave the radiation belts of earth you leave human nature behind, and have to start riding against it. If we cannot cure virus' (and are highly unlikely to ever do so), how can we take on an environment that is not ours. Natures rules man!
The reason why I would relate the two situations, is the surprising similarities between them. The AIDS scenario was all pomp and fair, much like the launches. Yet 20 yrs on we know the cure for AIDS seems a pipe-dream, and 30yrs on its looks as though any further moon landings are also as such. On one hand we have proof that we can see, on the other hand there is no proof other than what can be scientifically derived. Without going back to the moon, and on a regular basis, we cannot ever claim to have overwhelming proof that it occurred. Not unless you can cure the common cold!!!!

All this is just some way of trying the understand why we constantly baulk at a return. My mind still seems to think there is something wrong with the basic philosophy that restricts us.

Ah well, I guess my above analogy either cleared up my view or made it excessively worse, but let me know.

Who'd believe the #$@&* coming from my mouth anyway considering I've only just figured out the quote thing. Damn.
 
What’s your big hang-up about humans being able to survive in space? Other than the radiation – which can be blocked with simple shielding – there is little difference between the conditions in space and the conditions in a vacuum chamber on earth. Just make sure that your vehicle is sufficiently shielded to block the radiation and sufficiently strong to contain an atmosphere for you. It’s not that complicated.
 
In '69 it was not possible

The Van Allen Belt radiation alone would have been enough to stop the manned moon mission in '69. At 650 miles below the V.A.B. today's modern spaceshuttle must take precautions against the life-threatening radiation (CNN). In '69, in a mostly unshielded capsule, Armstrong and crew would have "cooked" from the hazardous radiation--much like a mircrowave oven.
Not to mention the fact that the onboard computer for telemetry had less memory than my mircrowave oven. With the 17 Apollo missions, NASA ha, in my opinion perpetrated the single most cruel and colossal hoax on mankind in recorded history.
It took more than 2 years following the Challenger disaster, for NASA to launch another Space Shuttle mission. You cannot convince me that in 1969 with a computer with as much power as my clock radio and an aluminum foil lunar lander that we set foot on the surface of the moon. Unbelievable! I believe it was simply a Cold War trick to make the Soviets believe we had far greater missle capabilty than we actually had.
 
LOL

What's wrong with Tin foil????
Most conspiracy theorists are quite happy to use it as a protective hat to keep the Government out of their heads


(Ignore this post I just couldn't resist).
 
apollo17stereo_vantuyne_c1.jpg


Apollo 17: Boulder in Stereo
Credit: Apollo 17, NASA (Stereo Image by Patrick Vantuyne)

Humans left the Moon over thirty years ago, but donning red-blue glasses (red for the left eye) you can share this excellent stereo perspective view of their last stomping ground. Recorded by Eugene Cernan, the scene depicts his fellow astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt next to a large split boulder on the floor of the narrow Taurus-Littrow valley located at the eastern edge of the lunar Mare Serenitatis. Parked nearby, their lunar rover is visible beyond the boulder at the right. During their stay the Apollo 17 astronauts explored the unusually dark terrain at the Taurus-Littrow landing site and deployed explosives to test the internal geology of the Moon. Apollo 17 returned the most lunar rocks and soil samples of any lunar mission.
 
Failure will always be more believable to losers.
Success for some will create an imposter syndrome.
Repeated success will jade some people.
But the truth that looms over us all
will always be descrete fact
whether some choose to recognize it or not.
 
Neelix -
The Van Allen Belt radiation alone would have been enough to stop the manned moon mission in '69. blah, blah, blah...
Click to expand...
read -
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm


some other guy,
Second, I do believe that the American government murdered JFK, but believe it or not it was done for the good of the world – the fool could have started nuclear war.
Click to expand...
- Fool? Ok, whatever. He was just protecting the US and the fools are those who were trying to build nuke silos in cuba.
 
Originally posted by Nasor
What’s your big hang-up about humans being able to survive in space? Other than the radiation – which can be blocked with simple shielding – there is little difference between the conditions in space and the conditions in a vacuum chamber on earth. Just make sure that your vehicle is sufficiently shielded to block the radiation and sufficiently strong to contain an atmosphere for you. It’s not that complicated.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top