Did we really got the man on the Moon

halkar

Edwin "Buzz'' Aldrin punched a man in the face after being asked to swear on a Bible that he'd been to the moon .
Some says it was made in desert and it never happened. So what do you think ?
Did Apollo really land the moon?

Runfree

The anwser is No. Then again I have read reports that this is so because the americans planted a flag on the moon and that none of the telescopes that can acctually see the moons surface never ever saw an american flag + there is no actual proof that they have landed on the moon.

But I can always be wrong

amp

Ahhhh, faked moon landings. My favourite loony conspiracy theory (after the whole Hitlers VW Beetle thing of course).

Here's a selection of Humanities previous discussions of the moon landings:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21263
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21308
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21314

Kali

Originally posted by halkar
Did we really got the man on the Moon

I think the question is "Did we really know the grammar?"

Repli

I heard nasa staged the fake moon landing to win the 'space race' with russia,
One of the sites I saw had some pretty convincing stuff, like when houston was talking to apollo, he was responding within half a second, when the radio transmission would have taken 1.5 seconds to reach him
And then theres the pictures, some of them show 2 light sources casting shadows, and in the most famous pic of buzz aldrin, there is no stars in the background

halkar

Originally posted by Kali
I think the question is "Did we really know the grammar?"

Only smarties has the answer :rolleyes:
And the answer is No we don't

Recently NASA is under severe pressure from people who doesn't believe Apollo ever landed the moon. I doubt they will ever admit if they didn't.

Typedef

No.

In fact I believe there is evidence to prove at least 'some' of the moon shots taken were faked, due to the impossibility of the direction of shadows being cast on the lunar surface in relation to the supposed position of the sun at the time of the photoshoot.

Take me to your laundry baby.

zenith

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/094_moon.shtml is the loony theory, and http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/097_moon.shtml is an excellent debunking.

It's worth reading both before posting complete and utter claptrap here.

mike65

Of course man landed on the moon, you'd be mad to travel 250,000 miles and not land!

Mike.

TacT

this thread has come up so many times I hope the next one has a definitive yes/no

Ajnag

One thing that sticks in the mind of a skeptic is the sheer fiscal and political sense it would have made just to fake the whole lot.The Cia were actively involved in drug running and other shady projects.So it makes absolute sense just to fake it and pocket the money.

halkar

Originally posted by mike65
Of course man landed on the moon, you'd be mad to travel 250,000 miles and not land!

Mike.

LOL Good point mike and would have been waste of 250k miles if you didn't bring any photos back to prove

[CALIBUR]

no he didn't . its the matrix lying to u

Winters

Nope, we never went to the moon.

There are a good few reasons why and i cant be arsed getting into them now for reasons unknown but only to me.

Ajnag

How many airmiles did they get?

Tails

F**k sake course we landed on the moon.
The conspiriouscy therories that say we dont really on huge conincidences and things to be happen in a certaon way.

Big Chief

i thought it was true till i watched that channel 4 documentary a couple of years back, been convinced it was unreal to this day afterwards

Repli

Originally posted by Tails
F**k sake course we landed on the moon.
The conspiriouscy therories that say we dont really on huge conincidences and things to be happen in a certaon way.

Like 2 suns, and the disappearance of every star in the galaxy for the split second the photo was taken.. right

DiscoStu

...and in the most famous pic of buzz aldrin, there is no stars in the background

Is it unknown for a camera flash to cause objects in the background to be darker than the subject of the photo? my new job developing photos has shown me that that is a very very very common thing. now consider the fact that they were working in less than ideal conditions up there(low gravity, bulky space suits and low light conditions) for photography might it have ocoured to you that infact the photots might not have been the best quality?

as for the 2 light sources. the flash and the sun. do you think the intensity if light reflected by the earth is comparable to direct sunlight(with no atmosphere) or a close camera flash(let alone a super powerful nasa flash that probably cost millions to develope. remember they spent millions developing a 0-g pen whe the russians just used pencils).

BeatTun

look out for a film called CAPRICORN ONE

makes u think

DapperGent

Originally posted by halkar
Did we really get the man on the moon?

Of course we did, it was a tribute song to Andy Kaufman as I understand it.

JustHalf

Haypenny Bridge, 300 Euros.

Any takers?

po0k

The scrap salvage value might just about be worth.
i'll have a word with Willyum-Paddy-Fitz and see what he'll offer for it.

Oh and We never landed on the moon, what was the point? Mars is just a short hop and a jump using the Skittle Drive™

Runfree

How can any1 prove we landed on the moon

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Runfree

we can using telescopes. if they planted a flag on the moon we shud be able to c it. but no-1 can c a flag.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

GoneShootin

we should get the guys from Scraphead Challenge to create a space craft capable of making its way to the moon to prove it

Sev

No ground based telescope would yield a high enough resolution to make out the outline of a lunar lander on the moon let alone a flag. Hubble, our most precise eye on the sky, could at best discern detail to a resolution of about 90 metres on the moon's surface, not nearly enough.

artvandelay

to any earlier point that a flash made the second light source and blanked out the stars, they didnt use flashes , in fact they didnt bring any artificial light sources.

mike65

Originally posted by Sev
No ground based telescope would yield a high enough resolution to make out the outline of a lunar lander on the moon let alone a flag. Hubble, our most precise eye on the sky, could at best discern detail to a resolution of about 90 metres on the moon's surface, not nearly enough.

Indeed! I think nasa should send the Shuttle round the moon and video tape the old landing sites, trouble is the ppl who don't belive we've been to the moon don't belive the shuttle or the ISS exists either....

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ykt0di9url7bc3

[HYPO-FREAKIN-THETICAL]
So i'm in charge of NASA for the fake Apollo moon landings....
I organise the live broadcast set (piano wires and lighting etc)
I organise for the capsule to be dropped into the ocean
I give some volcanic rocks and sand from metoer craters to American geologists!
I take a few pictures on the set of neil or buzz hanging around by the flag BUT I DONT BOTHER MY ARSE TO SCREEN THEM FOR EXTRA SET LIGHT SOURCING INTERFERENCE AND I HAND THEM OVER TO THE WORLD PRESS!
[/HYPO-FREAKIN-THETICAL]

Can a multi-million dollar cover-up can resort to that stupidity or is there a simpler explanation!

artvandelay

here is a picture nasa mistakingly reslesed!!

Winters

Id like to point out how buzz aldren punched a guy and walked out of an interview with a reporter when the reporter asked him to place his hand on the bible and state that he landed on the moon....

seamus

Originally posted by Winters
Id like to point out how buzz aldren punched a guy and walked out of an interview with a reporter when the reporter asked him to place his hand on the bible and state that he landed on the moon....

How would you feel if you risked your life to do something no-one else has ever done before, and 30 years later some little spa came up to you and said "I don't beleive you! Swear it really happened!". Rightly pissed off I'm sure.

NASA admitted that some pictures used for publication in the media around the time, were produced in a studio, for various reasons, including the poor quality of many pictures brought back.

They are due to release a book sometime this year which definitively proves that they did indeed land on the moon. Brace yourselves

Mutz

Originally posted by artvandelay
here is a picture nasa mistakingly reslesed!!

Lmao!!

Now that's Comedy!

I am and will remain a believer that man landed on the moon.
If we find out otherwise, it might cause lots and lots of problems for everyone :eek: <edit> i.e. What else have they lied about, and then we'll have all those alien wierdos flying around O'connell street preaching armagedon to anyone who will listen etc.. </edit>

Korg

I know this has been mantioned before somewhere here, www.badastronomy.com

End of story! Of course we went to the moon!

The conspiracy theorists keep bringing up the same points over & over again, even though they've been debunked on various websites such as the one above. I'd like to see some new, credible theories as to how nasa faked the whole thing, rather than the same old "no stars", "waving flag", "shadows" arguments. Is there any out there?

Sev

Originally posted by mike65
trouble is the ppl who don't belive we've been to the moon don't belive the shuttle or the ISS exists either

Well that's just silly, you don't even need binoculars let alone a telescope to verify the existance of the ISS. Based on orbital elements that are widely and freely available on the internet you can predict passes of it that can be easily viewed with the naked eye. It kinda looks like a bright star moving quickly against the background starscape and takes about 3 minutes to cross the sky from horizon to horizon. Iridium flares, now they're more impressive.

http://www.heavens-above.com/ if you're further interested.

BEAT

For all of the non-believers...where exactly do you think the rocket went after take off? and how do you explain the return capsule?
Why are you so quick to believe such a silly rumor?
I find it quite amusing that people are still falling for these gags on society. Whom ever brought up this question in the very beginning is probably sitting back laughing at all of you people who believe it :rolleyes:

halkar

I agree with Mike that Nasa should send images of the landing sites on the moon , especially now they have so many satellites and shuttle missions and the space station , if they can send images of mars from space they sure can send images of moon which is much much nearer. Of course this will cost money but having so many non believers, especially in US and they have the technology to prove easily the moon landing was true.

For all of the non-believers...where exactly do you think the rocket went after take off? and how do you explain the return capsule?
Why are you so quick to believe such a silly rumor?

Off topic but They haven't explain what happened to Boeing 757 suppose to hit to Pentagon either

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by halkar
Off topic but They haven't explain what happened to Boeing 757 suppose to hit to Pentagon either

Off topic again, http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

seamus

Originally posted by halkar
Off topic but They haven't explain what happened to Boeing 757 suppose to hit to Pentagon either

In for a cent, in for a euro eh? If you're going to believe one crackpot theory you may as well believe them all :rolleyes:

halkar

Yep, all crackpot theories and rumors , makes you still wonder. It is not about beleiving, as that is personal matter but still makes an interesting read and looks at the facts from a different angle just like the crackpot theories of moon landing. If you can beleive the media and your government why not beleive the crackpot theories too?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by halkar
If you can beleive the media and your government why not beleive the crackpot theories too?

Besides the fact that most of them are nuts, their "sources" are dubious to say the least, they've no expertise in the fields they're commenting on and a great deal of them are just attention seekers.

GoneShootin

send this man to NASA. he'll find out the truth

and for the record, the moon was landed on imo

xern

Originally posted by Runfree
The anwser is No. Then again I have read reports that this is so because the americans planted a flag on the moon and that none of the telescopes that can acctually see the moons surface never ever saw an american flag + there is no actual proof that they have landed on the moon.

But I can always be wrong

You've hit the nail on the head there, it's just another yanky ego trip!

Saruman

Originally posted by Repli
I heard nasa staged the fake moon landing to win the 'space race' with russia,
One of the sites I saw had some pretty convincing stuff, like when houston was talking to apollo, he was responding within half a second, when the radio transmission would have taken 1.5 seconds to reach him
And then theres the pictures, some of them show 2 light sources casting shadows, and in the most famous pic of buzz aldrin, there is no stars in the background

Why is it every time this crap topic comes up, the same retard arguments are put forward against and the same answers to say we did...
Of course there are 2 light sources, who said there was not? I think Nasa had one and oh yeah that real big one called the sun.
As for no stars? Spot the photographer... firstly do you see stars from earth when the sun is shining... With the exception of Venus and Mercury.. no! Also they used Low exposure time so not enough time to get stars in the pictures... in actual fact there are lots of pictures WITH stars they took with high exposure time.. etc etc etc etc...
1 Spanner started this whole conspiracy theory, can think of his name but he is a muppet!

As for no evidence... tell me how to fake a moon rock i.e a rock that can not have come from earth and i will shut up!

And the arguments of no one with a telescope being able to see a little flag on the moon, what kind of muppetry is that??? The Hubble can barely see Pluto and thats a bit bigger than a flag and does not need to go through atmosphere!!!

I saw a doc on Discover once that laid all these arguments against... then showed just why every one of them is utter crap. Some is common sense and logic, the rest requires knowledge of physics, or at least photography where you understand shadows and lighting etc...

[edit] Oh yeah there is another light source on the moon, making 3 i just thought of... the moon itself!! So you have the camera light, the sun and then the lunar reflection... you can also count the white space suits themselves... they would also reflect light making a 4th light source. Oh yeah and the earth makes 4... Its a lot bigger than the moon and is as such, 5 times brighter than the moon as seen from earth!

mike65

Originally posted by Sev
Well that's just silly, you don't even need binoculars let alone a telescope to verify the existance of the ISS. Based on orbital elements that are widely and freely available on the internet you can predict passes of it that can be easily viewed with the naked eye. It kinda looks like a bright star moving quickly against the background starscape and takes about 3 minutes to cross the sky from horizon to horizon. Iridium flares, now they're more impressive.

http://www.heavens-above.com/ if you're further interested.

I've seen the ISS myself and its exactly as your describe ie rather borning! But that does'nt mean others of fragile mind might'nt prefere to belive thats its, say, a CIA spy satellite.

Mike.