The Moon Landing Conspiracy

[HtotheNootch]

Someone asked for a thread about this in another thread.

Personally, I believe that the landings were real, but they found "something" and that's why we haven't gone back.

[RJT]

If science is questioning the moon landings, then I just got my answer to why some might not have an interest in the possibility of a God.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone asked for a thread about this in another thread.

Personally, I believe that the landings were real, but they found "something" and that's why we haven't gone back.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol- Yeah, they "found" that it takes a lot of friggin resources to get there and hasn't been worth going back to as of yet.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I believe that the landings were real, but they found "something" and that's why we haven't gone back.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, exactly!!! The moon is a hollow metallic sphere, which God made as a prison for fallen angels. This is the vantage point from where the nephilim observed the daughters of men.

[malorum]

Oh yes I almost forgot, it is also possibly the source of the waters above which led to the flood.
When the moon cracked open, down came the rain.

The London bus later found on the moon can thus be seen as a typological representation of the Ark.

Elvis and Noah must thus be viewed in their patriarchal roles as leaders of mankind.

My apologies for the heterodox nature of the post, but I felt this was too important to omit.

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]

Someone asked for a thread about this in another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was I.

So where's the thread? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I've seen some compelling evidence, although my mind is not made up entirely. I think the main important questions are:

1. Why did the shuttle emit a flame given there's no oxygen on the moon?
2. Why is there a glint of strings multiple times when the astronauts are jumping around?
3. Why does the flag wave without wind?
4. What technology did we have that could enable us to get there? The best computer we had at the time had the power of a simple calculator.

...and so on. There's some other questionable things, like the appearance of numbers on rocks and Coke cans and star formations and other crap. Discuss.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
4. What technology did we have that could enable us to get there? The best computer we had at the time had the power of a simple calculator.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the question I could never answer. I mean technology was so damn primitive, I cant believe that we landed on the moon with that limited technology. Someone care to answer this?

[ QUOTE ]
If science is questioning the moon landings, then I just got my answer to why some might not have an interest in the possibility of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this another one of your jokes? I can never tell these days. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wow, I think my brain is going to explode.


"I think the main important questions are:

1. Why did the shuttle emit a flame given there's no oxygen on the moon?"

A flame is the result of the product of a fuel and oxygen burning together. It's light given off during this reaction. I'll give you three guesses where the oxygen came from (hint: it's not the atmosphere of the moon)

"2. Why is there a glint of strings multiple times when the astronauts are jumping around?"

Hah?

"3. Why does the flag wave without wind?"

I don't see any flag 'waving'. If you mean the fact that it isn't limp, it's designed to stand up. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that flaccid flag doesn't look as good as a stiff one.

"4. What technology did we have that could enable us to get there? The best computer we had at the time had the power of a simple calculator."

I'm itching to call you something unpleasant but I'll refrain. We built hydrogen bombs and nuclear power stations without computer modelling. What specifically is so computationally difficult about a moon flight it requires a computer?

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. What technology did we have that could enable us to get there? The best computer we had at the time had the power of a simple calculator.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the question I could never answer. I mean technology was so damn primitive, I cant believe that we landed on the moon with that limited technology. Someone care to answer this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't tell if you are serious or not, how ironic.

That post was either idiotic or brilliant, LMFAO.

You do realize that primitive computers do the same things as the current ones, don't you? The answers just take longer to get. LOL.

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm itching to call you something unpleasant but I'll refrain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't I told you before that I don't like your lewd comments and I want you to go away? Judgemental people like you make me hate judgemental people like you.

Anyways, I'm not making an argument, because if you actually read my post, you would have noticed that I said I don't completely believe that we didn't land on the moon. I'm not sure what to believe. Which is why I asked questions... which you tried to answer and failed miserably.

Why don't you just save your time spent typing ignorant answers, like "Hah?" and "I don't see any flag 'waving'," and go steal a little kid's icecream or something? That way, your brain will stay intact because minimal thinking will be required.

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't I told you before that I don't like your lewd comments and I want you to go away?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you have, I must have missed it, in which case I apologise.

[ QUOTE ]
which you tried to answer and failed miserably.

[/ QUOTE ]
I answered two of four questions quite well, the flame and the computer. You asked how we could get to the moon without computers and I pointed out that people have succeeded in many endeavours that require far more computations and had far more mathematical and/or engineering complexity. I asked for a clarification of what specifically in the moon landing required a post 1969 computer and you declined to answer. So I'm asking you to clarify: What specific lack of technology in 1969 would have made a moon landing impossible or unlikely?

Regarding the flag waving, do you have a link to the movie that shows it? If you just mean that the flag is not limp against the pole, that's for (I hope) obvious reasons.

Anyway you seem to have picked out a few parts of my posts and not read the rest. I'm not sure why. That people actually doubt the moon landing enough to write posts/websites/emails about it makes me sad. There shouldn't even be a question if you spend more than ten seconds thinking about it. I have a passionate hatred of the kind of stupidity where poeple should know better but choose not to. It's nothing personal.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]

I've seen some compelling evidence, although my mind is not made up entirely. I think the main important questions are:

1. Blah


[/ QUOTE ]

Do one iota of research into this subject and you will find why others are going to treat these question with disdain. Honestly there are a whole load of sites out there which go through each of the "consipicy" theories and tear them to shreds, including every single point you mention.

Therefore the main important question is

1. Why did you post these silly questions?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If science is questioning the moon landings, then I just got my answer to why some might not have an interest in the possibility of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this another one of your jokes? I can never tell these days. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant it this way: If scientist aren’t even sure if we went to the moon (which was a new one on me) then I can, now, see how they would not be interested in hypotheticals (in the sense that the subject can't be proven) like whether God exists or not.

As far as if I was joking? I have no idea either. It depends on if the OP was a joke or not (I couldn't tell, myself, in that regard).

[benkahuna]

This thread sucks. You don't even go into the real issues with the moon landing. Just all the standard oft-repeated BS.

Apparently one of the real issues was that the cameras used on the moon were supposedly off the shelf consumer type cameras. There's no theoretical justification for such a camera to be able to withstand the harsh environment conditions on the moon (mainly high temperature) and it's among many questions presented to NASA, but never addressed.

[ QUOTE ]
This thread sucks. You don't even go into the real issues with the moon landing. Just all the standard oft-repeated BS.

Apparently one of the real issues was that the cameras used on the moon were supposedly off the shelf consumer type cameras. There's no theoretical justification for such a camera to be able to withstand the harsh environment conditions on the moon (mainly high temperature) and it's among many questions presented to NASA, but never addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any proof for this assertion? As a rebuttal, apparently Fox themselves, in their 'moon hoax' special, actually interviewed the guy who designed the cameras specifically for the astronauts!

[ QUOTE ]
The program goes farther than this, though: they actually contacted the man who designed the cameras for the astronauts. When they asked him why the pictures were always perfect, he hemmed and hawed, and finally admitted he had no answer for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#doubletime

BTW, here is a NASA page about the issue, where they answer some questions:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

[ QUOTE ]
If scientist aren’t even sure if we went to the moon (which was a new one on me) then I can, now, see how they would not be interested in hypotheticals (in the sense that the subject can't be proven) like whether God exists or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sentence contributes nothing, as there is no a debate among scientists with this issue. Also, let's not lump 'scientists' into one category. The only scientists' opinion on this matter would be NASA scientists. Who would care if some anthropologist was swayed by Fox's first rate investigative journalism?

[Jorge10]

You forgot.

END OF THREAD.

Here's my best answer against those that think we didn't actually land on the moon:

Conspiracies that involve thousands of people are notoriously difficult to maintain. Think of all the astronauts, engineers, administrators, scientists, etc. that would have to be in on it.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
If science is questioning the moon landings, then I just got my answer to why some might not have an interest in the possibility of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, RJT, I hope you realize how ridiculous this sentence is. How did you get from the OP to scientists apparently questioning the moon landing? I'd really like for you to walk me through that thought process.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If science is questioning the moon landings, then I just got my answer to why some might not have an interest in the possibility of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, RJT, I hope you realize how ridiculous this sentence is. How did you get from the OP to scientists apparently questioning the moon landing? I'd really like for you to walk me through that thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had assumed no scientist even considered such a notion. The fact that someone actually posted such a topic here in SMP just threw me for a loop. So, I threw out the notion that if there are any then …

My initial post was really meant to be a stopper for any further discussion. That is, either you got some science going on with this nonsense or you don’t. If you do, then my statement follows. If you don’t then give it up.

As far as Timmy’s remark that my statement contributes nothing - thank goodness for that. It was meant to not only not contribute, but to help dissipate the discussion.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Someone asked for a thread about this in another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was I.

So where's the thread? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I've seen some compelling evidence, although my mind is not made up entirely. I think the main important questions are:

1. Why did the shuttle emit a flame given there's no oxygen on the moon?
2. Why is there a glint of strings multiple times when the astronauts are jumping around?
3. Why does the flag wave without wind?
4. What technology did we have that could enable us to get there? The best computer we had at the time had the power of a simple calculator.

...and so on. There's some other questionable things, like the appearance of numbers on rocks and Coke cans and star formations and other crap. Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - Already been addressed
2 - Never seen nor heard of these "strings". Pics?
3 - The flag "waved" because when the astronauts put it into the ground, the light aluminum pole it was attached to was vibrating, causing the flag to wave
4 - It doesn't take a complicated computing system to do most of the simple physics calculations required for the trip.
Other questions - If I took pictures of 1000 rocks, I bet you could find one that has a "number" or "letter" somewhere on it. Never heard of the coke cans thing. What "star formations"? The pictures they brought back didn't show the stars at all.

You forgot some of the other "important questions":

Why are there no stars in the pictures the astronauts took? (Answer: the exposure needed to capture pictures in bright sunlight doesn't allow the faint stars to show up)
Why do the astronauts shadows not line up parallel with each other? (Answer: The surface of the moon is not flat, and even small hills will cause shadows to be cast at different angles)
How were the astronauts able to take all these perfect pictures with cameras attached to the middle of their bodies? (Answer: 1 - They practiced a LOT before the trip; 2 - Many of the pictures didn't turn out well, but they'll obviously pick and choose the best ones to show the public)

There are a ton more questions, and every single one is very clearly and easily refuted. Just do some work on your own to find them out.