DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11443 posts, RR: 78 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7142 times:
Quoting Thowman (Thread starter): I am just listening to a phone in programme here in the UK, discussing the planned moon landings, and according to their poll, 61% of the listeners think that man has never landed on the moon.
What do you think?
There's a guy here in the States called Art Bell who has hundreds of thousands of listeners, and there are similar numbers of people who buy the National Enquirer every week.
There's people that think the professional wrestling is on the level.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7053 times:
NOBODY at the time it was done thought it was a hoax. Not the Soviets. Not the thousands of geologists from all over the world who saw the moon rocks. Not a single professional astronomer or engineer ever said such a thing,at least in 1969. There were plenty of powerfull people arround the world who had a lot to gain from exposing any hoax. None of them even tried.
That being said, the fact that anybody believes this just underlines how far the US manned space program has fallen.
Seriously though - I have no doubts whatsoever that man has walked on the Moon.
I'm not one for settling ones differeneces by punching somone in the face but in this instance I'll make an exception. How embarrasing is that, getting your bu kicked by a man in his seventies! And then having the nerve to make a complaint. Seriously though, I put Mr. Sibrel in the same category as the people who believe the "pod theory" about the planes that hit the WTC.
All these people have one thing in common. They all believe that they so much smarter than the rest of us and we are a bunch of "sheep". In actuality there nothing more than a bunch of half wits with nothing better to do.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 30 Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6979 times:
I just look on the following facts:
The Saturn V launched. Many people saw that.
There is a mirror on the moon which is used today to measure the distance from earth to moon. Maybe a robot could have placed it there, as well. But is it more likely to have an automised robot landing on the Moon in 1969? If you can do that, you can also land on the moon.
The moon missions brought stones back to earth. These were not from earth, so where did they come from?
These 3 facts are enough for me.
But the 4th is even more obvious: As it already was said before, the Soviets would have notified the world at once if there had been no moon landing!
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6973 times:
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 13): There is a mirror on the moon which is used today to measure the distance from earth to moon. Maybe a robot could have placed it there, as well. But is it more likely to have an automised robot landing on the Moon in 1969? If you can do that, you can also land on the moon.
The Soviets landed a robot on the moon in 1970 which also had a laser reflector (mirror). They were unable however to successfully land a man on the moon.
Centrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3597 posts, RR: 21 Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6915 times:
I am sorry but it is all LIES...LIES... LIES
NASA DID NOT PUT MEN ON THE MOON.
I DID. I used over 1 billion Estes Kits!!!!!
Every once in awhile Japanese TV shows that crap about no man ever went to the moon. My students bugged me about it till I finally sat them down and gave them a lesson in light, gravity and SCIENCE. Some were actually inspired others found it annoying.
But I didn't tell them the realy truth...I PUT MEN ON THE MOON. LONG LIVE ESTES!!!!!!
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6821 times:
Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 20): f you have a telescope sharp enough to pick up the flag and lunar lander at landing area at Sea of Tranquility, that would eliminate all doubts....
No it would not. They would say the telescope is a fake as well. Show them experts examining the and they will simply question the integrity of those experts. If all else failed, they would say the flags were planted by a robotic mission. That is what they do with all the other evidence we are presented with. If anyone has truly heard all the evidence that we really went to the moon and still believes we did not, nothing can help him. Since belief in the moon hoax is not based on evidence in the first place, I fail to see how new evidence could be persuasive.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6753 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 23): Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 20):
If you have a telescope sharp enough to pick up the flag and lunar lander at landing area at Sea of Tranquility, that would eliminate all doubts....
If the idiots don't believe pictures taken on the scene, why would they believe pictures taken from 200,000 miles away?
In any case Hubble took pictures of the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 sites last month....
25 Scbriml: It's a well known fact that 87.63% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
26 Speedbird747: Back in 1969 many astronomers saw Apollo 11 on its way to the moon through their telescopes... Quite difficult to fake something like that, me thinks.
27 SATL382G: I looked for the pix yesterday before I posted the above but they haven't shown up yet. What I know I got from nasawatch.com at this link: http://www
28 WhiteHatter: I'm still convinced that 1. NASA did in fact go to the moon 2. The pictures, however, were faked. reasoning for 2 is this. The astronauts used convent
29 MissedApproach: Awesome! I only wish he had been punched that Micheal Moore freak instead!
30 TFSPhoto: Where's Wally.. I took this photo 10 mins ago.. Lew
31 Garnetpalmetto: Actually they did not use conventional film, but film specially developed by Hasselblad specifically for hostile environments. As an extra precaution
32 WhiteHatter: doesn't negate what I proposed though. It might have been specially developed but did it actually work as planned? Film has to be exposed after all..
33 Garnetpalmetto: I'm going to go with Occam's Razor on this one and go with the simplest explanation - that the film in fact did work. Besides, if NASA was cooking th
34 DfwRevolution: >> It might have been specially developed but did it actually work as planned? You have no way to prove that it didn't. >> In space and on the moon t
35 Thorny: This is just plain silly. The film (not conventional but specially made) can be and was protected from radiation (which isn't constantly lethal, by t
36 WhiteHatter: Unless someone does eventually come forward with verifiable and authorative evidence then nobody can. No it is not. There has been much debate about
37 Thorny: Ahem. These two statements are mutually exclusive. If the film was that important to NASA, which it was, they would have put a lot of effort into mak
38 SATL382G: ... as well as other film cameras on the LM aside from the Hasselblads... This theory seems to "ignore" those cameras. How about it WhiteHat, why did
39 WhiteHatter: Do try to show some intelligence. I am merely putting forward a theory which could cover both sides. Nowhere have I stated what I actually believe. M
40 SATL382G: How quickly you forget........ Now would you care to tell us what these "irregularities" are? What about the other cameras WhiteHat? Why did the non-
41 SATL382G: So you don't actually believe your own "theory". Why bother to post?
42 Thorny: And, apparently, refusing to address evidence which we have raised which very clearly destroys your theory. Instead, you resort to name-calling. This
43 Alessandro: Yes, the Soviets and Chinese would´ve loved to show NASA as liars, so I don´t think anyone would´ve dared to fake such thing 6 times and why then t
44 Aeroguy: Here's a website that I've always thought was a good read: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
45 GDB: NASA did put a lot of effort into film on the surface, as stated, the radiation thing is way overdone, it's just one of those words that seems to caus
46 Eaglekeeper101: " target=_blank>http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f....html In addition to this site, I recommend a visit to http://www.clavius.org Quite informative
47 Gary2880: if it had been faked the russians would have been all over americans i too saw that program the other night, i enjoyed the part with the skeptic where