Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?Page 3 of 32    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)

There is overwhelming evidence it was a hoax.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that it was a hoax. Its all a bunch of made up B.S. And there is not one single person from the thousands of people that were involved that has ever come forth to say it was a hoax. Not to mention we did it six timess. And what was Apollo 13 about then too? Was that a hoax too?
 lc44906
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 70
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/21/2007 8:58:52 AM
Both sides here are making a huge error. You're all forgetting that 'facts' do not necessarily imply 'accuracy'. Something may be factual but not accurate. I never took philosophy in college but at least I did learn that!

So please, STOP with the bullsh*t of "The facts say this..." on EITHER side of this argument becuase your facts MAY be inaccurate. Provide some proof to support your assertions and let's get off this silly concept of posting Internet links to sites as somehow being accurate sources. I've even found universities to have posted inaccurate information.

Or are you folks of the mindset that just because something is in print, it is bonafide accurate??? You don't check your facts?

While I'm sure that Bill Kaysing is a lunatic when it comes to his "Moon Hoax" theory, for the scientists who are in my camp, you folks have GOT to stop with the 'it's a fact' or 'that's a fact' because without citing your references, your claims are merely iimplied without anything to back them up and that's sad.

Remember, forget the websites as they're all but useless. How about some textbook sources, please?
 gazingatmars
Joined: 8/16/2006
Msg: 71
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/21/2007 1:48:45 PM
Moon landing was a fake. There's no way they got out of the atmosphere in that tin can. If people could fly to the moon in tin cans, why aren't more countries doing it?
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/21/2007 2:55:03 PM
Because alot of countries aren't interested and don't have the money and technlogy. And if you believe it was a fake, all your rockets aren't exactly burning either. Where do you think alot of today's technology came from? How do you think they continue to make rockets and space probes and continue to explore space. How could they fake it six times and nobody figured it out. There is absolutely no proof that it was fake. How can you prove that something that really happened was fake? With a bunch of moronic theories with no proff and hold water like a colander.
 gazingatmars
Joined: 8/16/2006
Msg: 73
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/21/2007 4:37:11 PM
Maybe you're right. It just doen't seems plausible to me. I've heard so many conspiracy theories about it it makes me suspicious. I'm not one to believe everything I see on the news and from the gov't. I'm no moron. Just don't see how flags wave in the wind on the moon. Where were the stars? What's with the effed up shadows?

Check out this site: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html Some of it is sketchy, but a lot of it sems too make sense to me!
 gazingatmars
Joined: 8/16/2006
Msg: 74
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/21/2007 6:14:18 PM
^^ I agree. the lack of stars is unexplicable.
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/22/2007 6:47:18 AM
The lack of stars is easily explained. You just don't like the explaination. The lunar surface is too bright and washes them out. The pictures are on film, not the human eye either. Frankly all those stupid explanations that the hoax believers come up with are pretty dumb. Because if NASA were to pull off such a hoax all that stuff would have been well planned out in advance. NASA isn't about hoaxes, its about the quest for knowledge. I guess fools like you won't be convinced until we return to the moon and send back pictures in Hi Def. Or I suppose by then you'll be saying it was faked then too because of all the specail effects movie making technology we have and even more so by then. You are the one who believes the hoax. The hoax of calling a real event a hoax.
 Sicilianbeachbum
Joined: 8/3/2007
Msg: 76
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/22/2007 7:42:04 AM
Obviously we landed on the moon, it's how Michael Jackson got famous.

DUH
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 77
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/22/2007 2:24:32 PM
Hmmm... I see that this thread has gone nowhere in particular. Should I be surprised? What I find curious is that the supporters of the moon landings being true have remained loyal to the thread, while the various hoax supporters have wandered in and out in a rather flaky and aimless fashion. Again, hmmm...

But nothing prepared me for this level of understanding-- not even the quizes for pornstars on the Howard Stern Show:

^^^Funny that, because on the video footage it looks real dark and shadowy, like dawn. Sufficiently dark to see brightly lit stars that are like a few miles above....as aposed to thousands of miles above when standing on earth! If you can see the stars thousands of miles from earth then can you immagine just how bright they burn? Now imagine being only a few mile from those stars, i don't see how you could fail to see them!!!

Yeeeikes!! Cripes almighty! A few miles? Step away from the computer, ma'am! Get thee to an astronomy class ASAFP (even one that isn't part of the whole conspiracy). Failing that, at the very least watch "Dora the Explorer" if available.

The reason i don't believe is BECAUSE tecnology was so basic then, not in spite of it!

You should do a search on the SR-71 Blackbird. It's a product of the '60s, and no one claimed it was a hoax. But, of course, you won't look into it. Willful ignorance is one of the worst handicaps a person can have.

Is it curable?
 Thatguy67
Joined: 9/20/2006
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/26/2007 10:13:20 AM
If another country (perhaps China) lands a man on the moon in the years to come, will we doubt their claims too?
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 80
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/26/2007 10:04:11 PM
Re - msg 146 & 147.

Go out during the day, and look for stars. Or better yet - go outside near a city. Can YOU see the stars, amid all that light?

All of the Apollo landings took place during the lunar day, so the sun overpowered all the stars.
 generlee
Joined: 12/10/2005
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/27/2007 10:07:05 AM
and now for the first time ever[ drumroll] lucid, biting , physically fit

rocket science.....ever try to have a conversation over the 107+ decibels of a

rocket engine? Thats what the Apollonauts did as they "touched down on the

moon"--and they were speaking in the normal telephone tone--so theres one F-

for all you star trekkers. Ok, so we are on the moon now and the god-damned

engine generating 10,000 lbs. of thrust did not even leave a gopher hole on the

lunar soil--F minus again to all you techies. The 1st astronaut now leaves his
spaceship aka the 'Lem"...and behold!! He is able to move and frolic about in

the microwave enviroment and lethal gamma radiation[ no atmosphere on the

moon, students] of 350 degrees!!! Next question, How do you film these events

since digital film is future tense to 1969?? And since regular film begins to break

down at 140 degrees Fahrenheit, we have arrived at yet another F minus. Thats

one multi billion dollar fraud, one red hole for mankind.
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/28/2007 6:53:20 AM
If the US government could have perpetrated such a perfect fraud of this magnitude, would they have gone back for Appollo's 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and risked being found out? And in 38 years all the thousands and thousands who worked on the Appollo missions committing this conspiracy have kept quiet?

Come on folks. If that were possible we'd have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by now . . . . and perhaps a North Korean/Iran connection to 9/11.

I don't go to religious forums and expouse the virtues of science on the believing. Why? Because those forums are their's. Why don't conspiracy theorists have the same common sense of decency and create their own forums to discuss anything they want, and leave the science forums for those that wish to talk about science?

You're as bad as those WatchTower people that invade my world every Sunday morning with their evangelism. How would they feel if I showed up at their door every weekend with copies of "The Origin Of Species" or " A brief History Of Time" for them to read?

Get lives people and quit bothering people that don't want to hear or read a word you have to say. We don't "get it", we never will, and quite frankly, if you make a forum we will never come in and question your beliefs. You are far smarter than even the smartest of us, we accept that. Now you accept it too, and next time I log in, I want to see you all gone to a forum of likeminded superintelligent beings.

Amen.
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/28/2007 8:28:07 PM

Because Father3, the forum is called "Do you believe we landed on the moon?" NOT "Hey all those who think we landed on the moon come in this forum and talk about how great it was!".....DOH!


I wouldn't have expected this from you.

The forum is science/philosophy.

The invasive thread is "Do you believe we landed on the moon?"

I'm not as think as you dumb I am!!
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/28/2007 8:47:24 PM

so why do you and your like come into these discussions to disrupt?


To let you know there is an appropriate forum for these discussions.

It's called Religion/Supernatural

I don't "get" you, and you don't "get" me.......but at least I am posting in the proper forum.


This is the 'Science/Philosophy' forum.
This thread was started under that forum heading, where it belongs.


An all too common misconception/tactic of those that believe they can skip the fundamentals of classical science and philosophy by just redefining for themselves what the words "science" and "philosophy" mean.

The easiest way to test whether or not there is any validity to what I've posted here for the past two days is to start your "Do you believe we landed on the moon?" thread in the proper forum, religion/supernatural, and see if anyone from the science/philosophy forum comes in to refute your beliefs. I for one couldn't care less what you discuss in there. I would never peek in to see, I leave you alone.

All I ask is that you extend me the same courtesy.
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/29/2007 4:51:17 AM

father3 makes a good point, discussion of the belief of the infamous moon landing, might very well fit better under the religion header.


Thank you. I was thinking more along the lines of supernatural because of all the is required to pull off such a stunt.
 elco1980
Joined: 7/4/2006
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/29/2007 11:14:09 AM
Quote: "^^^Funny that, because on the video footage it looks real dark and shadowy, like dawn. Sufficiently dark to see brightly lit stars that are like a few miles above....as aposed to thousands of miles above when standing on earth! If you can see the stars thousands of miles from earth then can you immagine just how bright they burn? Now imagine being only a few mile from those stars, i don't see how you could fail to see them!!!"

ALl I have to say to this is OMG. You are kidding right? I thought even grade one children knew that the stars are trillions of miles away! I guess I was wrong and now I see that there is an adult that actually exists out there that thinks stars are just a few miles away. I am speechless! OMG!
 generlee
Joined: 12/10/2005
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/30/2007 10:23:48 AM
this one is for all the believers in the NASA "mission" How, pray tell, do you

film a moon-landing in a 350 degree microwave enviroment with Hasslebad

cameras and Kodak film while being burned alive by the gamma radiation?

and the answer my friends isn't just blowin in the wind--no one claims to

know where the original "films' are......and isn't that just like the government

we've all come to know and respect? someone stop me before I think again
 elco1980
Joined: 7/4/2006
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/30/2007 10:54:46 AM
100% The moon landings took place. For those who don't believe it they are just very naive.
 prof48
Joined: 3/17/2005
Msg: 89
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 10/30/2007 11:22:14 AM
If memory serves, there was a minor scandal in the late 80's when it was realized that we lost the designs, and could no longer build a Saturn V if we wanted to/

Not so. Complete designs are held at Kennedy Space Center and other archived sites. I've seen some of them. But, anyone familiar with the space program knows that design itself did not result in functional spacecraft. It also required ops (operations) and a body of hands on skills and manufacturing capacity, much of which has been lost since the last C-5 was constructed. It would take 5-10 years to redevelop those operational skills in order to successfully launch a moon mission.--emphasis on the term successfully. You might want to look at Ken Lipartito and Orville R. Butler's History of Kennedy Space Center (Florida, 2007) for a discussion of those operational skills.

There are currently three--if you include the US 4--national programs in place to return to the moon--China, India, Japan. So far the US has not implemented a budget requisite to beat the Chinese. You should also remember that on the eve of the launch of Apollo 11, 49% of the American public thought the moon race was not worth the money. Indeed had Kennedy not been assasinated the program would probably been cut back sooner as Kennedy was talking about initiating a cooperative program with the Russians at that time. Once we moved from space "race" to science, the moon program was no longer politically cost effective in light of other economic burdens. Hence the decision to reduce the number of planned missions and to eliminate subsequent deep space manned missions. If you look at budgets for the current moon and mars program it is unlikely that either will finish their "mission" in the time frame for which they are proposed. Why? Return on investment. It will take at least 100 years to turn the moon into a profitable venture. No politician is going to vote to invest billions into a program which will not be profitable during their political career, much less their lifetime. Profitable space programs will continue to be in near earth space for the next couple of generations and the extent to which moon based operations turn profitable more rapidly will most likely be dependent upon improvements in robotic operations rather than near term human missions. The moon race was more about the cold war than about getting to the moon. The cold war began its decline once Russia abandoned the moon race and developed superior near space operations technologies, some of which are now a part of the international space station system.
 fortran
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:33:48 AM
Shielding depends very much on what you are shielding from. Charged particle radiation interacts very strongly with matter, and so it takes little matter to do something with it. When the energy of the charged particle radiation is very high, as in the cosmic ray primaries, you often want to let them pass through as much as is possible, as interactions with matter (such as shielding) can generate more secondary radiation effects than were than would likely be produced by the primary to begin with. Uncharged radiation, such as photons and neutrons, has similar characteristics, but the details are different.

A wide ejection cone would imply that much of the ejected momentum gets canceled out as far as thrust goes, but does that wider cone lead to improved stability?
 MrGuyCaballero
Joined: 2/27/2007
Msg: 91
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/2/2007 11:34:37 AM
No we did not I don,t think it was a ploy the Americans just wanted to get one up on the Russians, by now with all the other advances in technology we ought to be having cheap weekend packet holiday deals to the moon


So, using that same principle, the nuclear bombs developed in the 40's were hoaxes, too. I mean, why doesn't every family have 2.3 little nukes in their homes?
 prof48
Joined: 3/17/2005
Msg: 92
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:05:08 PM
I mean, why doesn't every family have 2.3 little nukes in their homes?

The predictions of the 1950s were that nuclear power would lead to free electricity. It did not. So I guess we should presume that it was a "hoax" using the reasoning of the conspiracy theorists.
Fact: In 1969 when we went to the moon 49% of all Americans argued it wasn't worth the cost. That number rose when the missions turned to scientific tasks and they compared costs to scientific and economic issues here on earth. We "chose" not to continue the moon missions because the return on investment could not compete with other investments after the Soviets decided not to compete in that area.

Recent programs to "return to the moon" have as much to do with potential competition from Asian countries as they do from inherent economic justification. Too put it bluntly investing in "cheap trips to the moon" couldn't compete with returns on investment in other scientific endeavors. They don't to this day, and there will not be a return to the moon in the near future unless driven by competition that may permit others to lay claim to the resources, as yet largely unknown, that may exist on the moon. Both China's and India's moon programs have more to do with rising "nationalism" than they do with economic investment.

There are basic costs involved in getting free of the earth's gravitational field that technological advancement does not change. While computer costs have plummeted, the cost for a space ready laptop has not. We don't need such laptops on earth so there is no reason to mass produce them. The increased costs do not come from an enhanced technology but from a different environment.


Sufficiently dark to see brightly lit stars that are like a few miles above....as aposed to thousands of miles above when standing on earth!


Um, the nearest star to the moon like the nearest star to the earth is 4.3 light years. Whoever thinks stars are a few miles above the moon, but thousands of miles away from earth doesn't have a clue about basic astronomy.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 93
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/5/2007 8:57:07 AM
^^^ Check out msg #26. It answers that question pretty darn well. And the US went to the moon in the 70's, too. Getting a rocket to the moon is more expensive than the rockets we have built since then. However, I think NASA is looking at going back to the moon. Stay tuned...

And a lot of things don't make sense on the surface that are, nonetheless, true and factual. I am really hoping that your sense of skepticism is powered more by your knowledge of a subject than by a lack thereof.
 MrGuyCaballero
Joined: 2/27/2007
Msg: 94
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 11/5/2007 9:15:54 AM
RE msg 94: It's not that the money to do it isn't there - that's not exactly what's being said. As has already been stated, it's that the relative value of moon missions is low compared to other endeavors that said money could fund.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >