Did man really go to the moon?

I think it was a load of bollox.

Space race! What was all that about? What was first prize then?

G

First prize was to leave footprints that will last for thousands of years.

I've met Neil Armstrong and hung out with Buzz Aldrin. I know Gene Kranz and Glynn Lunney well. I've talked with the last three about the moon hoax. In short, I promise you, NASA went to the moon not once but several times.

There is more than one guy out there who's playing on public ignorance and making a buck off it. It should be noted that these hoax proponents are poorly educated in the scientific and engineering arenas. In contrast, there are guys like this, a trained astromer and physicist, who gives rebuttals to the common hoax proponent "evidence" and backs it up with science. Another good debunking site.

So you gotta ask, if you can't understand the physics behind it, shouldn't you just trust the well respected scientist who makes $0.00 from his work vs. people who don't know a hypergolic fuel from a Lithium Hydroxide canister and profit from making outrageous claims?

But you were asking for evidence so: Apollo 15 landing site (with pics) and Apollo 11 experiment still in use today.

And another good debunking site from the UK.

People who pretend to know about these scientific cover-ups such as that there never was a moon landing or that we could have cars driving on water tomorrow if the oil industry cooperates are imho very irritating.

It's hard enough to explain scientific progress to the general public when the technology and mathematics involved are so complex you have to study half your life only to understand it, let alone take progress one step further. Making these stupid claims further limits the willingness of the general public to use tax money to invest in scientific progress. Is that what they aim for, or do they only want the attention of the media?

Eddie Izzard did a funny bit about Armstrong and landing on the moon...

@ VDB

I couldn't agree more. What I find exceptionally irritating as well, is the public need to believe in the outrageous. No longer is it good enough to marvel in the ingenuity of mankind and realize that we've set foot on another astronomical body. Instead people must in something more incredible that that; that the whole thing was faked.

The majority of claims the hoax proponents make can be rebutted with a decent understanding high school physics:

Q: Why is the flag waving unless there is wind on the moon (or on a movie set. Wind on a movie set? C'mon!?)?
A: Because the astronaut shimmied it back and for to get it into the surface, and inertia still exists in a vacuum. Due to the lack of air to dampen the movement, it continued to "wave" longer than it would in still air on earth.

Q: How come the astronauts didn't burn up in their suits? You can't get rid of heat in a vacuum and they were being radiated on by the sun with no atmosphere to temper the heat.
A: Of course you can get rid of heat in a vacuum. The three means of heat transfer are conduction, convection, and radiation. Radiation requires no medium (duh, it radiates).

Q: Why are there no stars in any pictures?
A: Pictures were taken of bright objects with intense lighting from the sun (no atmosphere to interfere). Cameras thus had to be set with fast shutters to prevent overexposure. Stars, being faint objects, did not register on film. Here is a picture of the ISS taken from the Space Shuttle. What is missing? Stars! Unless the hoax proponents think the ISS is likewise faked (like this nutjob who needs to retake high school physics), this argument holds no water.

So why are they building a Floating space centre?

Surely its more stable to build on solid moon?

I can only compare this to "trying to nail jelly to the ceiling"

G

PS where is the lunar buggy! No signs of this.

You're joking right? The big advantage of being in space for research purposes is that there is a microgravity environment. No such environment exists on the moon (as I recall the acceleration due to gravity is about 1.6m/s^2.


What do you mean no signs of it? The thing is tiny and 384,000km away. It is roughly the same as trying to see a radio controlled car (1/10th scale) at a distance equivalent to the circumference of the earth. That's why we can't see it from here.

If you want to know why Clementine couldn't see it, just look at the camera specifications.

It says, The image array is 288 x 384 pixels, (pixel size of 23 x 23 micrometers) so the pixel resolution at the Moon was 7-20 m depending on the spacecraft altitude.

As the buggy is less than 7m in length, it won't show up in Clementine photographs.

The discussion reminds me of people who say the Holocaust was faked, it never happened. Imagined, or perhaps a Jewish conspiracy. BTW, in Germany it is a criminal offence to say the latter. So please... come on! Yes, the Holocaust happened, and so did the moon landings.

Of course I am joking!!!

I bothers me not, what they do in space, as long as they dont bump into the sky satellite...

Its just a wind-up!!

Chill...

if they did that fox news would cease to support the bush administration (murdoch connection) which would result in nasa having to personaly replace it asap or its bye bye funding.

(also a joke... or is it?)

Its a conspiracy... you are out to get me

OK

Fortunately, the Sky satellites are geosynchronous and thus at an altitude of about 40,000km so I don't think it will be a problem!

or is it Geo-stationary.. @ 23,000KM above the equator?

or maybe they don't really exist. what they 'launched' was actually a scale model rocket, and the sat was just made up of left over white plastic chairs not used by the cia in the iraq beheading incident. oh and driven west is really an nsa agent who smuggels large amounts of stolen beer glasses to iran in order to pay for bush's doubles (bush himself being killed by osama bin ladens suicide plane bombers - no it didn't crash into a field!! - and emmerich (of id4 fame) was involved in the hollographic reproduction of the new white house, thats why they 'used ' paint from a german company, check the money transfers!! and those power cuts on the east coast were caused by using a special memory erasing device so that no-body knows about this all. check this link www.usa.gov.org its all there and i've got a tin foil hat on)

sorry will now check my render-farm

Same thing, geostationary or geosynchronous is an orbit of about 36,000km or 22,000 miles.

Actually. ...

According to David Niven.. "The moons a baloon"

How does that fit?

G

Yeah, there's more than one nutjob who claims that the moon is not actually a natural satellite, but a balloon or a space station placed in orbit by either the USA or an alien civilization to spy on mankind.

These books should be required reading for every human on the planet:

Why People Believe Weird Things
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

And I always thought the moon was made out of cheese...

"It's a simple question ... If the moon were made of BBQ spare ribs, would you eat it?"

Not that simple...pork or beef?

Unglaublich!


It is a good thing people like this don't get a chance to procreate.

being a newbie to TT.i am interested on the opinion of TT members ,did the americans land on the moon on 20.7.1969 or was it all made in a studio?

Topics merged by admin

This topic has been discussed before..

I think we came to the conclusion that the moon is actually made of cheese and Toytowns very own "Drivin west" is actually related to the first russian Test monkey that was launched into orbit..

Yeah, just ask DrivinWest. He'll confirm for you that it was *definitely* a studio production. No doubt about it.

I have the Wallace and Gromit video and they definitely get to the moon. Its made of cheese.

"We've forgotten the crackers Gromit!"

We actually have that today, you just have to break apart the molecules first which is not cheap.
I always thought the moon was a big pizza pie in the sky, but what that has to do with amore is a bit confusing.

I hope not. It would be a pretty boring, toppingless pizza.

quatro formaggi.
It probably has more cheese on it than the poor excuse of a pizza you get here.
I WANT BIG ED'S PIZZA!

Without question, yes. Anyone who believes it was faked is either ignorant of the facts (most) or a nutjob (too many).

Doubters should look here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

You'll notice most of those above sites are put together by scientists not high school drop-out profiteers.

@DW:


Yeah, and they'd like you to think that makes what they have to say credible. Everybody knows the moon landing was staged for the purposes of undermining the central seats of power in religion and to subjugate us to the godless, hedonistic dictates of "scientists". Same thing they've been after since Ptolemy, really. Needlessly complicating a pre-destined world, they are.

I was ' shrooming once and thought I was on the moon...
but then I am also contesting the papal election I think I won..
Perdido I ...

@ pg

Not them!?

I thought it was staged by Hollywood for a movie?

My favorite is the guy who concluded that mass is the limiting factor for the maximum velocity of an object as a way to prove humans couldn't reach the moon...

A couple more sites debunking the whole hoax theory here, here, here.

@ BostonSportsFan

You mean this guy?


. What a fucking moron.

@DW: The very ones. Bastards.

moon landings? what nonsense. all the proof you can eat right here: FAKED

Seems the effects haven't quite worn off yet

Damn true! Watch out for those evil little bastards that just want to spread their blasphemous, cultlike views and demean the morals of those who know the real truth.

Oakai Vladimir. You have your orders?

Da!

You have the brush?

Da!

Are you ready for countdown?

Da!

Ghrepeat me your mission.

Comrade Colonel. I find Apollo landsite. I go out airlock. I find size 10 footprintz... and eliminate from history.

Varry goot Comrade Vladimir! You have your 17 bottles of Vodka? Ready for countdown?

Da! Da! Comrade Colonel.

Goot. OK on my command...

...NRTb... 4eTbePKa... TpN... Ignition... OANH...

Vee have liftoff!!!

And goot luck Vladimir.

This is dead amusing:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

You must go to the bottom right of the page where it says:


Conclusive proof for me. Up until that stage I was pretty sure it was not a hoax, but now that I have heard Armstrong talking backwards it is clear to me that "Mnnnn yaahhh bllgghhh wkkkkk".

JE - everybody knows it was the British that landed on the moon first. A BBC team went up to film all 24 episodes of The Clangers in 1968

to all those conspiracy theorists, what would you consider to be conclusive proof that Man walked on the Moon?

[/I] goes away shaking head that I actually posted to a thread about kook conspiracy threads

OIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!
ARMSTRONG !!! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

No, the First Men In the Moon by HG Wells - it was Lionel Jeffries who claimed the moon in the name of Queen Victoria!

Actually there was a programme on TV the other night discussing whether man landed on the moon or not. I only saw some of it but they analysed every thing that's been brought up by the non-believers. I hope it'll get repeated (er, don't think I should use 'brought up' and 'repeated' in the same paragraph!)

@ KM

Was it a German production? Fox (the same guys that brought us FoxNews) in the US aired a show about the hoax which has been exported and translated. I linked it above but here's the debunking of that show again by the awesome Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy. Even if it wasn't the Fox show I'm pretty sure the same arguments were made.

No, it was British or American, I can't remember (maybe British funded but filmed in America with American's).

Basically they emulated the moon in a desert and tested the lunar camera and all the other things. They could replicate a moon landing but they were also proving that the moon landings were true. For instance the non-believers were saying that you should see stars on the moon. So they got an identical camera and demonstrated that due to glare from the surface you wouldn't see the stars. They did alsorts of tests.

We might have lunar landing proof finally
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1530611,00.html

And according to the Sunday Times yesterday we (well, the Americans really) may have polluted Mars with bacterial infection, so postpone any plans to go there unless you've had the necessary injections