Yes, I can see how that's plausible, but I still don't understand why it makes more sense than an actual landing.
Yes, I can see how that's plausible, but I still don't understand why it makes more sense than an actual landing.
I disable signatures. Killjoy.
Because, they felt like they HAD to land before the end of that decade. To mainain the credibility of a (granted, now dead) president. Not to mention make sure they do it before the Russians. That's your motive, the cold war, a motive that sparked espionage suicide missions (espionage has only one punishment- execution). And the means... well, that's obvious. Opportunity- this was their LAST reasonably safe chance.Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick
So, the fake is easily possible. And as for the evidence to prove that we did land. None of it's conclusive, anything we've seen could be fake. And all we need to do to prove it is one independent photograph of the landing zone. Of which, if the location is visible from earth (as it should given that one picture). And since it also gets sunlight- actually, the entire moon gets sunlight- "dark side" means earth can't see it, something that I thought was a reason we couldn't see the landing. Eh, my bad. But, I digress, the point is that, with our technology, any observatory should EASILY see the lunar landing sites. We can look at most of the others. See the lander base and all. But not that first.
As for the rest of the landings, well, I have no reason to doubt them. I mean, really, we CAN see most of them. Anyone who wants to and has a few grand to spend on a reciever is fully able to pick up on the Rover's transmissions. But the first... that's where I am suspicious. I mean, seriously, why can't we just turn a telescope over there? We have satalites that can read a license plate. We should be able to see the footprints left behind.
Not that I'm saying there's no way the first landing wasn't real. It entirely possibly could have been. Nothing exists that draws a 100% conclusion. But I think the chances of that first landing being real are far less than the chance of it being faked. Both plausible, and a simple photo would prove it, one way or the other. Which is why I think it's a fake... the general public believes the landings were all real, so they have no reason to prove it (if it is true), and I've already covered a bunch of reasons to deny it (if it's false). Nothing to gain, everything to lose, not the best odds for a gamble.
Last edited by udsuna; 03-15-2005 at 11:33 AM.
As has been said earlier... why wouldn't the Russians call the US out on it, if the race to the moon was so important that the US would go to such lengths to fake the landing?
Could you provide an example of a website with photos of the other sites? Are your sources referring to individual missions, or to the programme as a whole?But, I digress, the point is that, with our technology, any observatory should EASILY see the lunar landing sites. We can look at most of the others. See the lander base and all. But not that first.
The spy satellites which are rumoured to be so accurate are all in very low orbits, part of the reason they can see comparatively small things is because they are quite close, relatively speaking. Besides which, conspiracy theorists often have a habit of disbelieving evidence opposing their view. Even if NASA did aim a ground-based telescope at the landing site and took photos of it, I think many of the people concerned would continue to believe the landing was faked anyway. After all, they didn't believe any of the other photos or video NASA took, did they?But the first... that's where I am suspicious. I mean, seriously, why can't we just turn a telescope over there? We have satalites that can read a license plate. We should be able to see the footprints left behind.
of course man has landed on the moon but the very first landing was a hoax it wasnt till later the technology was good enough to build a module stable enough to travel into space and back and stay in piece.
Apollo 11 and other modules before it weren't very stable and poorly put together making it unlikely for it to make a journey like that with men in it in one piece think Apollo 13 it wasn'[t the best of miodules butbetter than its predecessor 11 model
ever think of satelites? they have the ability to take pictures like that and good artists and graphic people could make things similar to that but after Apollo 11 i believe they were real
Last edited by Shoden; 03-15-2005 at 05:09 PM.
LET THE HAMMER FALL
POST A PICTURE OF ONE OF THE OTHER LANDING SITES, with sufficient resolution to see the lander's platform, or the rover, or ANYTHING. I dare you. I'm telling you, I'm almost positive it has not been done.
"So, the missions follow this plan: launch rocket, achieve orbit around moon, drop module in general landing area, walk about on moon, launch pod that comes with module, catch pod with shuttle, go back to earth, and crash-land in the ocean. If the module cannot safely land and be retrieved, you give up and go home. Then, when they pick everyone up, they take what they can back with them and leave the trash to sink into the depths of the sea."
Why would they be unable to land?
"The only change you need to make is *really* simple: bring along a taped fake of a lunar walk. Quite probably, the voice-over was done on earth, by the astronauts. It's not like you have to worry about audio slips... just use the actual com. radios of the suits themselves."
They did slip up. - "One small step for man, on giant leap for mankind."
That makes NO SENSE. It's supposed to be "a man." I think Armstong claims that he said "a" but the radio just didn't pick it up. Why don't you make a conspiracy theory about that, it'd actually have some grounds.
"We have satalites that can read a license plate"
Those satellites are maybe a thousand miles away from said license plate. They're 239,000 miles away from said footprints. Figure it out.
"of course man has landed on the moon but the very first landing was a hoax it wasnt till later the technology was good enough to build a module stable enough to travel into space and back and stay in piece."
Numerous space flights preceded Apollo 11, including TWO flights to the moon - Apollo 8 and Apollo 10. (Apollo 9 was a test of undocking and redocking the LM done in Earth orbit)
yeah but they werent manned spaceflights once i'm not so tired i'll post some better evidence
LET THE HAMMER FALL
if u think america actually landed on the moon in 1969 then u're either in denial, or u're a redneck, or u're just uneducated.
Says he without any proof whatsoever (and lack of proper spelling).
And then there is Death
Yes they were. Here you can find a rundown of the Apollo project, mission by mission. You're also forgetting about the Mercury and Gemini projects, both of which put Americans into space.
Actually, this answers your own question of why they couldn't land. Several flights were aimed to land on the moon. 11 was the first to succeed (I still think it was fake). 12 made it. And 13 just went haywire. The russians made their attempt, too. Any number of thousands of things can go wrong to call the landing off.
Even an abnormally high amount of solar wind. Which would iradiate more than the lander could withstand... not to mention communication failure and such. Or just a miscalculation that put the orbit too high for safe transit, or too low to maintain. Or once they got close enough, finding that spot isn't safe to land upon. Or maybe they got diahrea from eating that god-awful packaged crap that NASA calls space food.
As for pictures of the landings, I can't find any from a serious distance. I've seen them, some of our space probes made snapshots when they were slingshot into the outer system. I'm pretty sure the Voyager probe sent back a few, but I don't really remember the details that well. I've sent an e-mail to NASA requesting an image or two, and a little detail. All the junk I tried to sort through was surface stuff. I don't have THAT much spare time on my hands.
Less words, more actions. Go do it. Bye.
And yes, it does involve shutting up until August. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I have a Phi Beta Kappa graduate friend who swears up and down that man never went to the moon according to calculations that him and his collegues did at Purdue University as a part of some study. Something about a radiation barrier in front of the moon that would require three feet of lead to prevent instant death from passing through?
Since I have no background in physics or advanced mathmatics, I cannot argue with him. Although I technically believe we (U.S.) did visit the moon, I do not discount the possibility of government conspiracy centered around the Cold War during that time. Until I am educated enough on the mechanics/technology available at that era, I cannot really make an absolute decision either way.
Last edited by Glendon; 03-16-2005 at 09:19 AM.
I couldn't help but chuckle inwardly.
The Earth is far bigger, more powerful and more radioactive than the moon, yet we can come and go as we please. There are some crackpot conspiracy theorists who say that humans have never been into space, and it's all a big hoax. Their "proof"? The belief that passage through the Van Allen radiation belt would be fatal.
The "radioactive moon" is an interesting notion, but simply not true. Earth's radiation field doesn't harm someone in a spacecraft; the moon barely even has a magnetic field to call its own.
princeofdarknez... in fact, nearly everybody: Please be civil and keep this debate polite.
I don't remember how indepth he went into the radiation theory, I'd have to ask him again. I do remember his main argument was the mathmatics involved in not sending man into space, but sending them to the moon and having them return to earth safely. He claimed that with the technology available at the time, it was mathematically impossible to pull off.
If I get the chance, I'll ask him to divulge deeper next time we speak (and ask him what he meant about the radiation deal), and make another post so we can pick it apart
I think I know what you're talking about. Long story short, the earths ionosphere shields us from cosmic radiations. Yes, the earth is more radioactive than the moon, but the SUN makes everything else in this solar system a comparitive drop of water in the ocean. The earth is more-or-less protected. The moon, well, is not. You need a considerable magnetic polarity to protect a planet from the solar winds.
However, radiation isn't immediately fatal unless in quantities far greater than you get this far away from the sun. A manned trip to Venus might get you close enough to experience immediately dangerous radiation poisoning (I'm not sure). But the moon is safe. Unless you're *very* unlucky and pass through one of the "streams" created by the earths magnetics, which condences the energy as it's pushed out of the way. Much as a snowplow does to your driveway. Then, yeah, you'd probably get torched.
But, aside from a vastly increased chance of cancer, sterility, or a slow death over a few weeks, you're fully capable of wandering about in space.
Posting Permissions
