The Moon Landing - Real Or Fake

[CaptainRon 0]

uh look yeh, i just put up one simple small argument about doubt on 6 FLAWLESS missions... but the conspiracy theorists (specially Ralph Rene) have put up far more intellectual and technology based arguments that hit the hard spot... try researching on that.One of the most valid arguments by Bill Kaysing was the Rocket engine sound problem. He said that the lunar lander had a powerful rocket engine right beneath the cabin and would produce high decibel sound. Some argue that there is no atmostphere to carry the sound, but what those idiots forget is that sound is created by the exhaust gases (the basis of rocket propulsion), and hence it would travel to the cabin via vibrations. Rather not just travel, it would shake the whole cabin up with some decent noise and shudder. But we hear none in any of the transmissions. Now even when a jet fighter pilot speaks on radio when aircraft's afterburners are on, we hear terrible shudder in the background which is basically due to the vibrations up in the cockpit. And the rocket engines on the landers are far more powerful, and noise creating... This argument has no intellectual counter statement from either NASA or elsewhere.Anyhow... there is no point in arguing on this topic. Now supposedly if China makes it to the moon, let's see if they can explore to the US land zone and check whether the flag still exists... or a blast crater still exists.Anyhow, I never said that China was doing anything wrong by buying technology... and come on, there is difference in business and things done for national prestige... what it means is they kill the national pride factor. Like when US sent Alan Shephard to space, they didn't buy the technology from Russia for the sake of not "re-inventing" the wheel :(And as far as moon mission is concerned, they usually buy or copy technology. There is hardly any important technology to China's credit, except whatever the Ancient Chinese did. Hell, they copy aircraft from Russia, bikes from India (Indian bikes have the reputation of economy with power, and thats what a common chinese needs too), electronics from Japan... and now what they can't copy, they buy. It's good, but finally the whole thing is pretty worthless as we just see another Russian rocket launch from Chinese space center.When we send our unmanned Lunar Lander in 2007, we make sure of national pride by developing all the technology on our own, and beat China atleast in that field. Apart from that it will carry US payloads of probably some AESA Radar. The Tejas fighter aircraft has lots of US and Russian technology implanted, but we do not hide it, rather put it clear on govt. websites about the participating companies. This is what China should do but doesn't.I doubt there will be any successful moon mission by China in the next 10 years. And even if they do it, probably US would already be civilizing it with a human colony by then.

Edited June 5, 2006 by CaptainRon (see edit history)

[Coremaniac 0]

Hi guys, this is my first post and i want to tell all of u that the mission was a fake , there are many evidences to prove the whle issue which were shown by conspiracy theory. The first one being that wen the US astronouts reached there , they had dug their flag and the flag fluttered , How the hell is it possible that the flag flutters on the surface of Moon were there is no air. There are much and many more evidences to prove dat the whole thing was a hoax and US had spent 40 mn$ for the whole setup which was done supposedly at Area 51. these are the reports by Conspiracy Theory.

[illini319 0]

This is one of those near self-perpetuating conspiracies... If I said well, why don't we just point the Hubble on the moon! Surely, we would see evidence of humanity if we used a powerful telescope. The obvious retort would be that it's owned by the same organization that faked it in the first place... All i can say is the value of having been on the moon still eludes me. I still can't imagine how such cold war inanities could have captivated the globe. Even more, how the President Shrub intends to blow more gas by putting us back on that rock. Absolutely nonsense!

[CaptainRon 0]

The budget was 40 billion, not million. The video said that the movie, Capricorn One, was made in $40 mn budget, and if that looked so bloody realistic on screen, the same could have been done for a fake landing.

[ruben1405241511 0]

Well, think what you want, but read: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

It's just ridiculous if you can't follow the principles I gratefully copied from Wikipedia.

I know it's fun to believe such stuff and trying to prove it, but COME ON. In short: It's easy to point out inconsistencies, but as long as they do not prove the Truth-theory wrong, you need to accept the truth.

A good prove to show that it is not true, would be to show that Armstrong was actually on earth, while he was shown on the moon. No can do? You can just tell me that the flag flutters? OH REALLY? Well, I completely forgot, the only thing that can make a flag flutter is the wind, right? No, it is not. That's why it's *BLEEP* to take small things and show that they look different than expected, I mean in the end, none of these fellows has actually been on the moon to prove that it is impossible to do these things.

And a-whole-nother way to view it: If it really was fake and there was proof, don't you think these things would be less obvious. Don't you think one of your imaginary NASA-Fakers would have seen the flag flutter and say "Hm, looks to unreal, let's cut that scene".

Hypotheses are accepted or rejected by scientists based upon a set of criteria that apply to all scientific theories For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

Consistent (internally and externally)

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)

Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)

Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

When viewed in this way, the question is not "Can every detail about the moon landing be explained?" but "Does the Hoax hypothesis better fit observable facts than the Truth hypothesis, and is it more self consistent?". [3] Thus, a first obvious problem with the Hoax hypothesis is its lack of narrative cohesion. The Truth hypothesis is a single story, but there are many Hoax hypotheses that each address specific aspects of the moon landing, but conflict with each other if taken as a whole. One proposal says that the landings were faked because the real landings were conducted using alien technology.

Oh a some quite good proof pro-moon landing (found in German Wikipedia):

⢠The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will be send into space in 2008 and will photograph the landing sites â but of course they could just fake those photos too, right (how many generations of corrupt scientists do you think, the NASA has?)

⢠It's quite improbable that the NASA was able to recreate moon-gravity scenes, when hollywood still can't do it today.

⢠The reflectors they left there. Now you could say they placed them there with robots, but yeah, sure, disregard the fact that the Soviet Union took all their time and budget just to get up the rovers for that mission

⢠private radio operators all over the world could listen to the astronauts â the replies came with a delay that can be calculated to be the light-speed-delay. Not two times the delay, if they send it up and back down from a space probe.

⢠Apollo 11 videos "featured" the Russian space probe Luna 15 crashing. Now the regarding documents were released and show no differences from the American description.

 

Sorry for crushing your dreams..

RBN

[CaptainRon 0]

Sorry for crushing your dreams..

you sound like a mean girl with crushed ego...
Relax... no one's gonna change the GK books with Armstrong's name as the first person to land on the moon.

[Ezo 0]

If NASA faked the landings, it leaked out for like years ago...

[CaptainRon 0]

-- oops got submitted twice

Edited June 7, 2006 by CaptainRon (see edit history)

[Darkwolf11235 0]

I've heard of this conspiracy theory and think its ridiculous. The fact that there were also other missions to the moon afterwards makes it pointless to fake the first. Also, it would be impossible to fake this, you could ask specialists in physics and they would say the way the light reflected from the lunar surface was correct. And since when did conspiracies gain any viable credit, people still speculate about roswell but those who truely believe and continue to upgrade the rumors by adding little changes are probably wearing aluminum on their heads.

[minnieadkins 0]

I've always taken the moon landing for granted I guess. I never really questioned it. I still think it wasn't fake, but I'm not a very strong believe in my own opinion in this case. They sure put a lot into it if they faked it. I guess we'll never really know.

[mpinsky 0]

I don't see why it wouldn't be real. After all, it wasn't really for the scientific value; it was more for militaristic strategy. The moon landing happened during the Cold War which America was then in competition with Russia. Because Russia already had sent the first man into space and orbit, America decided to shoot for the Moon, thus began "The Space Race". Not only was it done for National Pride, but because America somehow came up with the strange notion that we though Russia would claim the Moon as a military base, and we wanted to claim it first. It wasn't until after we achieved it that we found out that Russia didn't have any plans to claim it as a military base whatsoever. So, because all the effort and money the American government put into it, and because of the militaristic value of it all, I highly doubt it was a conspiracy.Hope that made sense.

[BitShift 0]

Haha.... funny.... but you never know whether there is oil there..

I hope they don't find oil if they ever do get to Mars or anywhere else.

Its time for us to move to an alternative fuel source, one that doesn't cause so much pollution.


I am no environmentalist, but if any of you guys have ever been in a tall building in Houston Downtown and looked outside the window at dusk, you would know what I mean. The smog is immense, it gets so bad you can look down a street and follow it with your eyes. Eventually you won't be able to see it anymore, not because its too far away, but because there is a brown mist blocking your view.

[yeh 0]

BitShift, even if they found oil there in Mars, they wouldn't transport it back. At least, that's how I view it. There's nothing that oil can do that cannot be substituted. Petrol can actually be processed from coal. And this technology is quite old. Been used by Hitler in World War 2. As for generating electricity, there are tonnes of other alternative fuel source, some environmentally friendly and some not. Most probably the resources that would be mined in the moon or mars are those not found on earth or the mineral is very scarce on earth and its use cannot be easily substituted.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

this is a hard argument because like the whole fear of UFO coming from space came from the US government trying to cover up the fact that the UFOs actually came from Germany at first, then from the Soviet Union. So, if the US government did do these sleezy tricks on the general public, then I suppose they could've pulled a trick about the moon landing. However, I do believe that they did land on the moon because we've found and discovered things on the moon that we brought back to Earth.Furthermore, wouldn't the Moon's rotation make the flag flap?Also, not all cameras can capture faint lights of the stars back then as the cameras weren't that advance.xboxrulz

[luizzeross 0]

I think it was all a fake. If even today we doesn't have enough technology to land anywhere and remain intact and safe, I think that was a fake back there.