Did we land on the moon?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

1. My grandpa isn't alive anymore.

2. He was psychic (if you believe in that stuff)

What else?

And also can you lot cut down on being so rude?

Thanks.

No one was being rude, they were however pointing out how ridiculous your post was. To be quite honest I thought you were joking as I did not believe that anyone could seriously make a claim like that.

There have been many posts by hoax believers all of them have failed to provide any evidence to prove their case but yours, by far, is the lamest argument so far. If you wish to debate the subject this is the place to do it, but if you are going to make posts like this then no one is going to take you seriously.

Whether people believe in psychic phenomena or not is toatally irrelevant. There is overwhelming evidence to show that your Grandpa was wrong about this. The Apollo programmes are not an issue of belief but of scientific knowledge and fact. For your Grandpa's opinions to even be considered as evidence you would first have to prove that psychic abilities exist (this has never been done to any scientifically recognised level). You would then have to prove that your Grandpa had such abilities. You would then have to prove that he actually made the claim that the Apollo landings were fake and that these claims were based on his scientific abilities not just his opinion. If you can do all that (and you are likely to get a Nobel prize if you can manage it) then you would have one tiny piece of evidence.

It is good to listen to one's parents and grandparents but that does not make them experts on everything. Sometimes it is best to think for yourself.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Well I am telling the truth...

But obviously I realise you cannot believe some user who is writing on the internet. That is understandable.

Now, what evidence is there that you landing believers actually could give to me, to prove my grandpa wrong?

I am sure you are telling the truth. I am sure your Grandpa believed what he was saying, he was still wrong though. Try reading my first reply to you, or the rest of this thread if you are interested in real evidence rather than the opinions of relatives.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

No one has insulted you or you beliefs. Indeed I have stated that I believe your Grandpa was sincere. My father (and his father before him) also believed in psychic abilities and so I certainly am not going to ridicule you for that, but the Moon landings are not about belief they are about knowledge and scientific evidence.

You ask about evidence for the moon landings but then show a singular unwillingness to read that very evidence. This is the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "la la la," when someone is trying to tell you something that you don't want to hear.

You can choose to believe what you want but if you go through life with an attitude that are not prepared to listen to anyone that can show you that you might be wrong then I am afraid you will learn very little.

[MID]

I can't be bothered to start anything with you or let you get me worked up.

I am just going to say whatever and I shall try not to run into you on this section of the board again.

I just don't like being insulted and I definitely don't like people insulting my beliefs, my relatives beliefs etc.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Pretty much what Waspie said....

I'll reiterate what I said:

What is it that you believe that leads you to the erroneous conclusion that the most documented and substantiated occurrance in human history was a fake?

Your own questions would be of value here...

We are inviting you to ask questions, that you might learn something you don't know.

The knowledge is here for the taking.

What could be more fun?

This is not a demeaning thing...it is an offer.

I can't be bothered to start anything with you or let you get me worked up.

Can you be bothered to learn? That's what we're here for.

No need to get worked up. It doesn't require getting worked up to piece your own thoughts togtether, and ask a question.

Besides, you're far too young to be getting worked up. At 16, you have a whole life ahead of you! Learning things is the fun part of life!

1. My grandpa isn't alive anymore.

2. He was psychic (if you believe in that stuff)

What else?

I am sorry that your Granpa is not alive any more.

However, learning something that he did not know will not diminish his value to your life in the least...at least, it shouldn't.

"What else?" is precisely what I'm asking you.

You want to learn something? This is the place to ask.

[flyingswan]

2. He was psychic (if you believe in that stuff)

The is a million dollars on offer to anyone who can convincingly demonstrate a psychic phenomenon:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Until the prize is claimed, I for one don't believe that stuff.

[flyingswan]

I just don't like being insulted and I definitely don't like people insulting my beliefs, my relatives beliefs etc.

Your and your relative's beliefs are pretty insulting to the 400,000 people who worked to put men on the moon. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

[Cynical1]

I truly do believe that satellites are a hoax..

I believe that the pressures in outer space are to strong for metals and especially space suits.

All we really know is what were told. I believe you're right about Metals & space suits.

Where is the proof?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

All we really know is what were told. I believe you're right about Metals & space suits.

Where is the proof?

The proof that satellites are real and that your argument is nonsense is simple. Go out on a clear night. Find a dark area away from light pollution. Look up. That is it. You wont have to wait long before you see a satellite.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Cynical1]

All we really know is what were told. I believe you're right about Metals & space suits.

Where is the proof?

Off the subject slightly, In 1996, there was talk of NASA budget cuts, very shortly

It was announced that rocks from Mars were discovered that contained a form of

life. How ironic!!!! Never forget that NASA is a branch of the Government, failure is

Not an option.

[Stellar]

Umm... there is a lack of pressure in space...

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Off the subject slightly, In 1996, there was talk of NASA budget cuts, very shortly

It was announced that rocks from Mars were discovered that contained a form of

life. How ironic!!!! Never forget that NASA is a branch of the Government, failure is

Not an option.

Off course you forget to mention that the budget was cut and has continued to fall in real terms. It's a real shame when minor inconveniences, such as the facts, get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

From Wikipedia:

In a report published February 4, 2007 by Florida Today, if Congress clears a mid-year spending bill as planned, it will be the seventh time since 1994 that lawmakers have approved a cut for the nation's space agency, according to an analysis of NASA budget documents. In the past, Congress has approved these cuts to NASA's budget:

• $553.8 million in fiscal 1995
• $155.5 million in fiscal 1996
• $131.7 million in fiscal 1997
• $61 million in fiscal 1998
• $51.3 million in fiscal 2000
• $10.8 million in fiscal 2004

According to the Florida Today report, five of those cuts were during Republican-led Congresses

Source: Wikipedia - NASA Budget

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Umm... there is a lack of pressure in space...

Indeed. So many people seem to thank that a vacuum sucks without realising that it is the internal pressure that pushes. Both ReignStarz and Cynical1 seem to fail to understand this.

Most unmanned satellites are not pressurised (except for things such as the fuel tanks). However even a spacecraft pressurised to the normal for the Earth's surface, 1 atmosphere 9atm) only has a pressure difference to the vacuum of space of 1 atm (space being as close to zero as makes no odds). That is not a fantastic amount of pressure. In fact it is about the same as a can of Coke fresh from the fridge and about half that of a can of Coke at room temperature (source for can pressure figures: hypertextbook.com). Funnily enough metal (in this case aluminium) seems to be perfectly adequate for the job.

If these two gentlemen do not believe that metal is strong enough hold a pressure of just 1 atm I would love to hear how they think it can manage with the substantially larger pressures found in things such as gas cylinder and fire extinguishers.

There seems to be a growing trend that when people do not understand a scientific principle, rather than learn about it, or at least admit that they don't understand it, they simply refuse to believe it and shout "fake". I find this disturbing.

[Zeta Gundam]

We landed on the moon END OF STORY!

The real story is "why haven't we been back?"

[Lilly]

There seems to be a growing trend that when people do not understand a scientific principle, rather than learn about it, or at least admit that they don't understand it, they simply refuse to believe it and shout "fake". I find this disturbing.

It's called taking the easy way out. Why bother to think/learn when one can simply scream *fake* and *conspiracy*! Yeah, it's certainly disturbing.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

It's called taking the easy way out. Why bother to think/learn when one can simply scream *fake* and *conspiracy*! Yeah, it's certainly disturbing.

At least most conspiracy theorists (or at least those selling the books and making the money) make some attempt to sound scientifically credible (even if it isn't) and many on this board will at least attempt to use scientific reasoning to prove the conspiracy (some better than others). This, however, is something different. I've seen it in discussions on evolution too. The logic seems to run:

• I don't understand it.
• It isn't possible for me to not understand things so if I don't understand it, it must be wrong.
• If it is wrong it must be a conspiracy.

It's not just the easy way out but seems to be an arrogance, a failure to admit that others may know more.

[Unlimited]

We landed on the moon END OF STORY!

The real story is "why haven't we been back?"

thats my question also...you will be told; it's all about money. but i dont believe that...im not sure why noones gone back....

[MID]

thats my question also...you will be told; it's all about money. but i dont believe that...im not sure why noones gone back....

Yes people will be told that essentially, it is all about money.

It always has been all about money.

You merely refuse to believe this economic and completely understandable fact.

Budgets were cut, starting in 1968. Eventually, Nixon scrapped the final 3 flights of Apollo in 1971.

He diverted fiunding to the Shuttle program, because he wanted his own space legacy...which of course he never got....because the budget was too low and required a hell of a lot of detailed engineering to come up with a compromise to the original plans.

We had no public or governmental mandate to go back to the Moon.

The congress wouldn't consider appropriating the funds for such a venture, and , they didn't.

In a nutshell, that's why we didn't go back. Nixon confirmed his ideas during the Apollo 17 mission, when he said that that flight (17) would likely be the last time man visits the Moon in this century. He was correct.

Now, we have funding, and a governmental mandate, and we will return...so long as the appropriate government remains in power.

If you wish to believe that simple economics and popular support (or lack thereof) doesn't drive manned space efforts, and prefer to take this salient, and very simple factual basis as evidence of a hoax...so be it.

It would perhaps be better if you had some education in Economics 101. That would explain it completely for you.

[MID]

All we really know is what were told. I believe you're right about Metals & space suits.

Where is the proof?

It is better to learn than to believe. I think this was covered about 20 pages ago.

But pressures are indeed non-existent in vacuum. They are not too high.

What Waspie said is true about spacecraft internal pressures and the differential.

Pressures are actually vastly higher at deep sea depths. Yet, we have craft that have descended thousands of feet, with much higher pressure differentials than any spacecraft has ever experienced...

No proof is necessary regarding something that has been done, time and again, sucessfully. The proof is right in front of one's face.

Space suits and pressure suiits have worked effectively in low pressures for decades. It's somewhat easy.

What's truly amazing is that a craft can descent 35,000 feet under the ocean, at incredible ATM pressures on the order of 1000 atmospheres...and not be crushed. the idea of a 1 ATM differential in space flight, at best, between inside and outside pressures, is rather easy to contenmplate, when considering that human engineeering has built vessels that can withstand a thousand times that much pressure differential...

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Yes people will be told that essentially, it is all about money.

It always has been all about money.

Money and political will (the two are interlinked). There has not been the political will to return to the moon because it isn't a vote winner. Because it isn't a vote winner the money has not been provided.

Back in the sixties it was a huge vote winner, America simply had to beat the Soviets to the Moon. Having won the race politicians from the Nixon Administration onwards simply saw no reason to continue it.

Now America is going to return to the Moon. Ask yourself this question, is it coincidence that the political will (and therefore money) have returned at the same time as China announced that they were planning to place a man on the Moon? Do you really think that it would be a vote winner for US politicians to stand by and allow a Communist nation to have a space flight capability that the US once possessed but gave up?

Votes = political will = money found. It is as simple as that.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Dan_Orlovsky]

I have, from time to time, questioned the authenticity of NASA's claims of reaching the moon. I don't think we'll ever really know the truth. But given what we know about the government, I wouldn't doubt that they would be totally willing to pull something like this. If you ask me, it was faked.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I don't think we'll ever really know the truth.

An interesting view point from someone whose profile quote is, "The truth is the truth is the truth is the truth. Period."

I tend to think that it is your profile quote that is correct and your statement from the above post that is wrong. When NASA returns to the moon by 2020 followed by the Russians/Europeans, the Chinese, the Japanese and even the Indians those that claim that it is impossible to go to the moon will be shown to be wrong. When the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is launched at the end of next year it will carry a camera powerful enough that it may be able to image some of the Apollo hardware on the Moon. This will provide the proof that Apollo took place.

There will be a small minority of hard core of hoax believers who will claim that the photos are faked, or that the hardware was placed on the Moon by unmanned space craft. This will not be a case of not knowing the truth, it will be a case of denying the truth and that is a different matter all together. Sadly that is what many hoax believers already do, they cherry pick evidence, present small bits out of context and claim it is proof of a fake whilst ignoring (or simply dismissing as lies) the vast amount of evidence that shows that they are wrong. These people would still believe that the landings were hoaxed if NASA launched them to the moon and threw them out the air lock naked. They would be calling NASA liars with their dying breath. That, though, is strong belief not truth.

But given what we know about the government, I wouldn't doubt that they would be totally willing to pull something like this.

I also think that they are capable of pulling of something like this, "this" being landing 12 men on the moon and returning them to the Earth. We all know that governments are capable of telling lies, that doesn't mean that they are incapable of telling the truth.

If you ask me, it was faked.

Is this based on any actual evidence or just gut feeling and a dislike of the government?

My tendency would be not to ask you (nothing personal you understand), but rather refer to the vast amount of evidence which overwhelmingly supports the authenticity of the Apollo landings. Or, if I was going to ask anyone, to ask the thousands of experts such as aerospace engineers, astronomers, geologists, physicists, etc that have examined the evidence (in some case the physical evidence such as the moon rocks or the Apollo hardware) and believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that between 1969 and 1972, 12 American astronauts walked on the surface of the Moon.

You are correct in your personal statement that the truth is the truth, this is true regardless of personal beliefs. In this case the truth is easy to find, just weigh up the evidence and you will find that there is absolutely none that supports the moon landings being faked.

This is a case where the truth is not only the truth, it is also knowable. It really doesn't take much time to find the truth.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Dan_Orlovsky]

Well you know what they say, the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. The whole moonlanding event reeks of SOMETHING. What exactly, Im not sure. I don't think the astronauts are being totally honest. I think they, and top brass at NASA, among others know something and aren't saying anything about it. What exactly they are not being totally honest about, who knows.

[Lilly]

Well you know what they say, the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. The whole moonlanding event reeks of SOMETHING. What exactly, Im not sure. I don't think the astronauts are being totally honest. I think they, and top brass at NASA, among others know something and aren't saying anything about it. What exactly they are not being totally honest about, who knows.

Why do you think that the astronauts and NASA in general aren't being honest? I've never noticed anything in this regard myself, could you give us some specific examples that lead you to feel this way?

[Dan_Orlovsky]

Why do you think that the astronauts and NASA in general aren't being honest? I've never noticed anything in this regard myself, could you give us some specific examples that lead you to feel this way?

The original post. The astronauts wouldn't swear on a bible that they actually went to the moon. If some annoying A-hole who didn't believe I landed on the moon, and asked me to swear on a bible that I did, I would do it. Its just a little fishy.

[goody2k7]

Q: did we land on the moon?

A: Yes

People who beilive we didnt seem to point out rubbish to support their claims. What about the fact it was recorded video?and the laser that sends information back to earth? How about the photos which you would have to be completely stupid to ignore?

Case closed for me.