paincake
Power Member
- Aug 18, 2010
- 724
- 3,124
I thought that the vital part of any discussion is making claims and backing them up. I guess I was wrong.
Did Man Land On The Moon
- Thread starter lucky17
- Start date
I thought that the vital part of any discussion is making claims and backing them up. I guess I was wrong.
paincake
Power Member
- Aug 18, 2010
- 724
- 3,124
Scripteen
Elite Member
- Sep 19, 2009
- 1,818
- 1,930
The interval between all appollo ships reminds me of the 2 trips/week to my country. I mean if they were able to make it that fast to the moon why did they suddenly stop for 3 decades?
For the sake of the debate, get those discussed as well:-
Who built the pyramids?
Who killed kennedy?
The list goes on...
For the sake of the debate, get those discussed as well:-
Who built the pyramids?
Who killed kennedy?
The list goes on...
Dadelius
Regular Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 454
- 320
Actually I asked two questions and ended with "Yeah right!"
I'm not making claims, I'm telling you I don't believe we went to the moon.
And you pointing me to a wikipedia article just didn't convince me otherwise.
Well, at least you admit it.
I'm not making claims, I'm telling you I don't believe we went to the moon.
And you pointing me to a wikipedia article just didn't convince me otherwise.
Well, at least you admit it.
hateandbreak
BANNED
- Apr 17, 2010
- 1,402
- 1,570
Look dude THEY LANDED ON THE MOON. Plain and simple. Why would millions and millions of Americans sit outside for Nothing? It's just DOESN'T HAPPEN. Nuff outta you...
hateandbreak
BANNED
- Apr 17, 2010
- 1,402
- 1,570
Extra Terrestrials Obviously! DUHHH
Can't wait till the day comes when Real Intelligent beings show themselves.
paincake
Power Member
- Aug 18, 2010
- 724
- 3,124
Well, at least you admit it.
I don't know if you realize it, but you've just shown your true colours.
pyronaut
Senior Member
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,189
- 1,440
Oh well, if it's in Wikipedia!
Actually, you can go to an observatory and see for yourself
. They left mirrors on the moon that when a laser is reflected on it, it relects at exactly the same angle so you can capture the reflection.
The Scarlet Pimp
Supreme Member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 1,419
- 4,463
Myth Busters went over some of the key points, and they showed the people who were making the claims were wrong in their assertions.
zebrahat
Elite Member
- Aug 6, 2008
- 2,514
- 3,037
The problem with citing Mythbusters and Wikipedia is that these 'authorities' cleave extremely slavishly to the establishmentarian view on any controversial subject. They present one interpretation of the data with highly finalistic rhetoric, or heavy "Authority has decreed" spin (the way a prosecutor always presents a case as if there is only one reasonable way to look at the facts). Data pointing in other directions is omitted or downplayed. There are teams of people monitoring Wikipedia who actively dispute and block any alternative but valid data and sources from getting onto, or staying published on that site.
For those not swayed by intimidation tactics, or one-sided "complete" sounding presentations, the counter story and case remains: The initial moon landings occurred before NASA had worked out all the technical problems, so at least the first (and possibly the second) "landing" was staged (with flaws). The latter landings were real, and look a bit different as a result (more video details of the moon, etc). For those interested in seeing a response to the Mythbusters show, go to youtube and search under "Mythbusters Debunked," which leads one to a TON of videos rebutting their presentation.
The photo flaws and staging evidence in Apollo 11 strongly suggest a hoax, if the data is subjected to the EXACT same scrutiny that alleged UFO photos are subjected to. To the establishment partisans, the government's faked photos and explanations, apparently, must always be accepted on face value, but the private sectors' UFO pix must be questioned, or routinely rejected. Original Apollo mission astronauts challenged about the legitimacy of the original landings have consistently dodged directly answering the question over the years, saying "oh that's ridiculous" instead of "yes" or "no" about whether they were faked. Such verbal techniques are usually a sign of a cover-up.
This version of the fake theory acknowledges that the latter landings were real, thus it accounts for the equipment left behind that is visible from the earth. It acknowledges that some of the photos and alleged staging flaws can be explained, just that most of them cannot, and the rationalizations given for some defects do not hold up when they are critically examined.
Finally, the notion that the landings were all real because the Russians (with whom we were proportedly in a space race) never challenged them is fallacious, as the so-called space race itself was largely an invention of a US intelligence propaganda campaign. The Reds never seriously deployed manned craft to the moon at that time to be in a genuine race with the US in the first place, and have certainly not done so since the 70's til now, when there were no US moon missions to compete with. So, something has been covered up, and it is reasonable to challenge the government's version of events.
For those not swayed by intimidation tactics, or one-sided "complete" sounding presentations, the counter story and case remains: The initial moon landings occurred before NASA had worked out all the technical problems, so at least the first (and possibly the second) "landing" was staged (with flaws). The latter landings were real, and look a bit different as a result (more video details of the moon, etc). For those interested in seeing a response to the Mythbusters show, go to youtube and search under "Mythbusters Debunked," which leads one to a TON of videos rebutting their presentation.
The photo flaws and staging evidence in Apollo 11 strongly suggest a hoax, if the data is subjected to the EXACT same scrutiny that alleged UFO photos are subjected to. To the establishment partisans, the government's faked photos and explanations, apparently, must always be accepted on face value, but the private sectors' UFO pix must be questioned, or routinely rejected. Original Apollo mission astronauts challenged about the legitimacy of the original landings have consistently dodged directly answering the question over the years, saying "oh that's ridiculous" instead of "yes" or "no" about whether they were faked. Such verbal techniques are usually a sign of a cover-up.
This version of the fake theory acknowledges that the latter landings were real, thus it accounts for the equipment left behind that is visible from the earth. It acknowledges that some of the photos and alleged staging flaws can be explained, just that most of them cannot, and the rationalizations given for some defects do not hold up when they are critically examined.
Finally, the notion that the landings were all real because the Russians (with whom we were proportedly in a space race) never challenged them is fallacious, as the so-called space race itself was largely an invention of a US intelligence propaganda campaign. The Reds never seriously deployed manned craft to the moon at that time to be in a genuine race with the US in the first place, and have certainly not done so since the 70's til now, when there were no US moon missions to compete with. So, something has been covered up, and it is reasonable to challenge the government's version of events.
Last edited:
GreyWolf
Elite Member
- Aug 17, 2009
- 1,862
- 5,847
LOL. Ok your right Wikipedia isn't the endall and doall resource that guarantees accuracy.Oh well, if it's in Wikipedia!
The point of wikipedia is to provide a place for people knowledgeable about a topic to give a collective reference point for people to learn about a topic. A good wikipedia article will include citations to other more definative research.
It may not be an absolute authority, and people do need to understand that. But it's a good place to send people to when they're asking questions. The very nature of wikipedia encourages complete inaccuracies to be corrected.
If someone knows anything about a topic beyond the info on wikipedia, has seen that a wikipedia article is fairly complete and accurate, then it makes since to send people to that article. The alternative is to write their own article including sources of the information when they want to answer a question.
Much easier to just send them to wikipedia where that's already been done, and let the readers follow the links to check out the source material themselves.
-----------------------
And for the OP, yeah I believe the us space program in the 1960s and 70s was real, I believe they were capable of accomplishing the missions, and they actually did go to the moon. There's too much real evidence that does support it. No I'm not going to cite it all, just go to the wikipedia article and check out the sources it cites adn then continue your own research from there if you want.
On a side note. My best friend since we were kids used to live in Lancaster, CA. His dad was a machinist that worked out at Edwards AFB back in the 1960s.
They used to have barbeques at his house sometimes just as everyone does. Unlike most people though, my friend got to meet some of the astronauts and others involved in the space program during the "Right Stuff" era. I'm not telling you that to support anything, I just always thought it was cool he got to meet those people at his own home when he was a kid.
MoneyMachine
Junior Member
- Nov 22, 2008
- 147
- 46
Id say yes and probably not only the Moon.
Sanitarium
Regular Member
- Sep 27, 2008
- 312
- 654
Don't quote me on this but i believe sheep was there first.
SSL9000J
Regular Member
- Oct 20, 2009
- 298
- 181
No. So why go back? The moon's just a big damn rock.
tacopalypse
Senior Member
- Nov 30, 2009
- 935
- 2,533
both sides of this argument are simply citing sources that they've read about or heard about, while saying that the other side's sources are bogus.
arguments like this cannot be won. neither side has the capability to conclusively prove their point to the other.
nor is it even worth the energy. personally i'm fine with everyone believing whatever the hell they want to believe. it doesn't affect my life in the slightest.
arguments like this cannot be won. neither side has the capability to conclusively prove their point to the other.
nor is it even worth the energy. personally i'm fine with everyone believing whatever the hell they want to believe. it doesn't affect my life in the slightest.