I know that there is a lot of ideas and pieces of evidence floating around saying that the moon landing did never infact occur at all. Although these bits of evidence and stuff does make me think for a little while I still like to think that we definately did land on the moon. The world changed drastically after the moon landing and it was one of the most influencial television events in history as most of the world watched "live" as Neil Armstrong too his first steps and misread his line(that's right, he was meant to say "one small step for A man" not just "one small step for man" but the next sentance was one which is too prolific for me to dismiss the moon landing as a conspiracy "one giant leap for mankind"- That's just amazing, I would've loved to have been watching that when it happend, it must have truley been so inspiring.

Reply

This is all really sensitive stuff, so we can not turly prove which isde is right, or which side is wrong, untill we make space travel avabile to the public.

Reply

Evidence circulating that we didn't land on the moon? Could you specidy some piece of evidence? And yes, the landing was influential. I heard from three or two days that they discovered a planet which is two hundred light years away from Earth, and that it is larger than Jupiter, and its moon is larger than the Earth. I dunno if we could ever reach that planet, it would be WAY cool to do it. What type of shuttle or spaceship would they use? How much time would they need to reach there? Is there any life on it? You take the brainstorming

Reply

i think they're already available, didn't you hear that old new of Lance of N'sync going to space or something like that, anyways i once read an articles about this topic, and they got this picture of Neil Armstrong (err... sorry if i type if wrong) with the USA flag, and they were arguing that the lights didn't match the trayectory of the sun and how whas the flag moving if it supposed that in space there's no air (in my opinion i think the cosmonaut just move it a little) and those stuff, anyways a very interesting topic here

Reply

I've seen millions of documentary programs and newspaper articles about this conspiracy of landing on the moon, personally, I don't think we did land on the moon, the evidence is right there to show this! There are photos of of the flag waving in the wind and I think that the Americans were so desperate to get to the moon before the russians, they faked it + fooled the world. In interviews with Buzz Aldrin he hates talking about what was supposed to be landing on the moon, could it be because they didn't actually land there? Around 160,000 pictures were taken during the mission, but only a handful are available to the public.

Reply

Come on people, we landed on the moon. I hate these arguments that people make, but the initial evidence presented makes it valid I guess. To me, space has zero gravity. When you put up a flag at zero gravity, any motion that flag gained by its initial movement would remain constant, thus the flag would wave in space. I don't know if that is scientifically substantial validity, but that's my view...

Reply

Ok, this is just plain silly.

All of these arguments are ancient and pointless.

"Waving Flag"
There are a multitude of possiblilites to explain this, and they have been covered in this thread over and over again. Suffice it to say, there is a reason why it APPEARS to be waving in the non existant wind.

"No dust on the lander"
Again, this has been covered, but I will repeat it, dust takes a very long time to settle, and a picture would not necessarily show dust, no matter how clear it was.

"Second Light Source"
Again, it has been covered, but again it bears repeating, EARTHSHINE!!! The earth IS a light source.

"Van Allen belt radiation"
There are several methods through the Van Allen belt wich minimizes radiation, it is easy enough to avoid the heaviest areas of the radiation belt, and this is exactly what the appolo missions did. Also it DOES NOT require 2m of lead shielding to protect against said radiation. This is an urban legend that is completely false, the fact is 2m of shielding would probably protect you from a nuclear blast, and do you really believe that the van allen belt is putting out THAT much radiation? The Radiation in the Van Allen belt is not the same as electomagnetic radiation, and if I recall correctly metal is fairly useless against particle radiation, the shielding of choice is I belive polyetheline (sp?), back in the appolo age they used something else, but there are numerous materials that work just fine and dandy.

I have seen a similar documentary, and it is compelling, but the arguments are made by people who don't have a basic understanding of physics, and NASA doesn't bother refuting them because they are silly arguments. That are not fully researched.

There I believe that I have refuted all the evidence agains the lunar landing. If people still choose to believe something they saw on a deliberately biased documentary I refer them to Chariots of the Gods. Or if that reference was a little vague let me relate a little story my Grade 11 physics teacher told us about analysing data to "prove" something. One of his students (or so he claimed, personally I believe it was probably him) proved conclusively that three hole punched lined paper was a message from Alpha Centauri. His argument was extremely interesting, but of no real value, in his paper he demonstrated that by taking the length of the paper and multiplying it by the number of lines, and then doing something about the radius of the holes you end up with pretty damn close to the exact distance from here to Alpha Centauri. Very interesting little paper, I read it, quite amusing and throughly convincing, however you then had to realize all the crunching he had to do to fit the theory. When you start out with a theory you are already convinced is true it is pretty easy to skew the evidence in your favour.

 

 

 

Reply

Wow I never thought about this. It kinda does make you wonder though....

Reply

I can't believe no one has posted this quote yet (it's from a comment to a story on Slashdot). I don't have much to add to the discussion here in itself, but I just thought that this quote had to be posted, it's just priceless

Reply

If we havent actually landed on the moon yet, how do we know there should of been dust on the moon lander?

but yeh statement 3 "Shadows in the same photos suggest 2 different light sources, but on the moon the sun is the
only light source." seems a really good point



~ Munchie ~

Reply