Did we really land on the moon? Do you believe the USA actually landed there?



Against:
Was it hoaxed like some say? If it weren't real, then where did we film it?

Why did the flag wave on the moon, if there is no wind and atmosphere there?

If it is real, why weren't there any stars in the background of the movie?

Why wasn't there a blast creator on the moon from when it landed?

For:
How could the USA possibly even think to fake it?

Wouldn't another country say something if they faked it?

Where was China during the Cold War? <== like how come they didn't really side with one of us, or challenge the other.


What are your opinions?

I bet this is going to be a really controversial topic.

Conspiracy Theory - Did we land on the moon? (Fox)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...+on+the+moon%3F

I actually watched it. It's 48minutes long. Makes you start to question NASA...

I can't believe any intellegent person has any doubts about this.

Definitive answer: If we didn't , how did the laser reflector get there?



What these people show as 'waving' is caused by a mechanical perturbance.


It's something called limited dynamic range of the film. Why can't you see stars on a sunny day - do you dispute they are there?


There was dust moved around. The amount of thrust + the altitude at which the engine cut off was such that it did not make a big hole.

I'm not really gonna spit out my opinion until later down the road. I like to watch everyone else battle it out first.

question

how could man survive through all the radiation in earth's protective magnetic field?

ditto

Everything Dr. Derf^2 said is pretty true.

I saw a documentary on the National Geographic channel where they analyzed and debunked just about every argument the conspiracy theorists have.

The flag was waving due to the flimsy aluminum tubes used to support it. When it was planted, the tubes (both vertical and horizontal to stretch the flag into a rectangle) bounced and jiggled for an extended amount of time due to the lack of atmosphere and air pressure. EDIT: Also notice that the flag doesn't move as the astronauts move by it. No wind = no disturbance in close proximity

The stars don't appear because the surface of the moon is very bright. The camera cannot adjust to the intense brightness of the surface of the moon while also capturing the faint light of the stars. Difference in contrast. It's the same as standing under a street light, looking up, and trying to see stars. Try it yourself.

There was a slight disturbance in dust, however not enough to warrant clouds and plumes.

I hope these explanations are simpler and easier to understand.

The best answers to debunking that conspiracy theory were on a Showtime series called appropriately Bulls**t with Penn & Teller. It prove it was bull.

Penn and Teller did a special? Man, wish i could've caught that one......

Of course we landed on the moon. And I heard we are about to do it again and even land on mars one day in the future!

*sigh*

Sorry, I am just kinda sick of this debate...are people (none of you, I'm talking about the conspiracy theory nuts) sooo bored/paranoid that they have to question something like landing on the moon?

I agree with ddeerrff and Heretic Monkey completly.

Also, the moon landings cost a lot of money. Why would NASA take billions of dollars of taxpayer money and fake a moon landing? I'd rather spend the cash on actually going there! Wouldn't you?

If one applies a very high, and completely unrealistic, criteria for truth to any occasion, one is bound to be uncertain.Even Aristotle understood that one should not expect the same degree of certainty in different kinds of knowledge.
Any event, if one picks and chooses small pieces of it but ignores the whole that "hangs together" one can find "reasons" for doubt. There are indeed, no facts but only interpretations of facts. And one can choose the most high fantastical interpretations, or one can choose to use common sense and accepted methods within each field.
Regards,
John

Yes, I do believe we did land on the moon.
And ddeerrff thank you for your intelligent and clear explanation.

Conspiracy Theories do just as they are intended to do.
Convince those reading/hearing them that they are the one and only truth.
It is so easy to fall into their trap.
One must remain rational, or otherwise one will be believing everything one hears.
And there are many crazy theories floating around out there.
Before you know it you will have trouble separating fact from fiction.

I agree. I believe we did land on the moon. I just think that if one looks hard enough they can find something to dispute almost anything.

Heck if I really wanted to I could say this site is a conpsiracy. It's really helping the spyware indutsry.

Why, yano, what ever gave you that idea.......? Of course there's nothing wrong with this site....... It's completely safe to list any and all aspects of your computer, network settings, ip addy, spyware/adware programs, virus programs..... :mello: :mello: :mello:

Oh crap, they found me out.......... RUN!!!

Ok

my ip is 127.0.... wait a second?

One thing that I always disagreed with was HOW DID THEY GET LIVE AUDIO AND VIDEO IN THE FIRST TRY?!

I totally agree with everything else, except the technology that they used for communication.

While holding my left hand on my head while typing,I pray for the pain to go away after reading this question...

Hi guys

That's very good topic for we change some words about it.

Let's take a look to this site and give a look to the trailers on that.[color=#3366FF]A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

The first and the second movies can be downloaded whit any p2p program.

Saw the trailers and tell me something.

Darthy

WE DID !!!!

When this topic somes up I get a migrain, can't be bothered explaining justification for why we did and why people who think we didn't think we didn't.

Thats an easy q, with a million answers!

That said, I have no doubt that the USA did plant the stars and stripes on the old dusty moon.

Dear DarKRaiKa

Your migraine is justified because I think you did not

Have you seen the samples of my link? Go and see them, don't be afraid.

Regards, Darthy

Hi guys


Let's talk about this issue again. Like no one says, "many people are confused about it" and he is one of them, I think. He sends us to the link above, and I went there and see nothing new. It's a sad thing that we cannot post pics here. So he could saw all the contradictions that they have. The contradictions are:
1-The moon is 240,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind.
2-Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.
3-Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, recently granted an interview to 60 Minutes. Ed Bradley said, "You sometimes seems uncomfortable with your celebrity, that you’d rather not have all of this attention." Armstong replied, "No, I just don’t deserve it." Collins refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.
4-The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions.
Those things can be seen at the link Moon Landing Hoax, that I give, you all, advise to see.



How can the astronauts survive twice to a radiotion of this magnitude? Once when they gone to the Moon and twice at their return to Earth!!! Explain me this no one, and the other things I designate in this post. Don't be afraid to see the link posted in here.

Regards,

Darthy

It has to be new to be true ?

Please read here as well
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
there is explainations for most of your questions I assure you
(even for questions you didn't ask )

also here is a quick experiment for you if you wish
since I don't like radiation I'll use fire
(I've been X-Rayed and Lived to tell about it)
If I light a candle (or any open flame will work) I can pass
my hand through the flame if I do it quickly with no harm,
only will I get burned if I stop or do it too slowly

As for Armstrong I'd have to say its more modesty, as that a number
of people have died before him and after him as well, and as he was just
"doing what he was getting paid for"(quotes mine) as it was

A couple more links for your viewing enjoyment
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2005/12...uis-denouement/
this one covers alot also (like the heat)
http://www.clavius.org/

Hi again no one

It's very good that you fight back.


I didn't ask anymore questios because the space, here, is not unlimited, but I have much more questions to ask you. I went to all your links and I like alot the <bautforum> and I'm going to register on it, thanks.


Do you know the thickness of the second Van Allen belt?
It's approximately 45*10^3 miles (45000 miles) and the speed of the astronauts was about 18000 miles/Hr., which means that they were inside that belt approximately 2 and an half hours+2 and an half hours in their return. It was not like a quickly pass of your hand by the flame of a candle. It's not needed to talk about the first Van Allen belt, don't you think? Until next.

Regards,

Darthy

Hi again no one

It was like you have your hand 5 hours inside the candle's flame.

Regards,

Darthy

from this article at Space.com
It will also explain 9 other hoax concepts.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/05030...on_landing.html

Hay there Darthy
allow me 3/4 inch or so of "frozen smoke" (and something to hold my hand up )
and I don't see a problem

Take Care

This may not be relevant, but I would like to mention it...

When the people at NASA were making plans for landing on the moon, they were not worried about an impact on the moon because they believed there would be tens of feet of dust on the moon. This assumption was made upon the assumption that it had been accumulating dust for billions and billions of years. They landed on the moon and found only a fraction of an inch of dust on its surface, an amount that would have accumulated over only about 6,000 years. FYI: The Jewish calendar is in approximately its 6,000th year.

And Darthy, to address the radiation...

There are many forms of electromagnetic radiation. In order from strongest to weakest: gamma rays, x rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwaves, and then there are several types of radio waves. You are also exposed to radiation when you eat a banana or open a bottle of French salad dressing (you know, the orange kind). The point is, people are exposed to radiation all the time. You can't escape it. So, being in a band of radiation for over 4 hours may not kill you, or even harm you.

I am not saying anyone is right or wrong, I just wanted to throw some facts about physics out there.

Hi guys
Let's go again at fight

I know there are many forms of electromagnetic radiation. Let's go to read this:
Who says this? Don't you Know? Look well:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wradbelt.html. It's NASA??? What did you have to say now???
Did you Know what is a Mev? It's a Mega Electron Volt and the particles inside the 1st Van Allen belt are protons with the energy of 100000000 ev range what is a great, great amout of energy for each particle. Inside of the 1st Van Allen belt there are zillions of protons, each one with that amout of energy. Only a fool would stay in this region for more than 15 minutes!!! And when he got out of there would be better that he went immediately to a decontamination center.
Let' go and see what more NASA has to give us:

I think there is no need of more quotations from NASA

If you don't see any problem, the problem is yours. Until next and regards.

Darthy

I will not argue any more on this topic as I am not knowledgable enough to do so.

I don't understand the meaning of the "Take Care"! Can you explain to me?

Regards,

Darthy

hummm... a type of farewell, a wish for well being

Hi no one and thanks for your explanation.

I wish exactly the same for you

Regards,

Darthy

Hi again everybody

I think there are no doubts about this subject.

So the conclusion is: We never really land on the Moon.

Regards,

Darthy

Hi again

I said "WE", because I'm a member of the Human Kind.

Regards,

Darthy

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make'em drink...

ain't that a fact

My personal stance. Although everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion.

Hi guys
Let's go again to talk about this topic.

Like, perhaps ddeerrff, I saw the direct tranmission of the event in 1969 and I stay astonished with it.
Let's go and see what are their arguments:

1-I think I'm an intelligent person and, now, I don't think like him. At that time I was 22 years old and was ending my graduation. When I finished it, I went to take a specialization in electronics and physics and it was there when I began to study radiation that I knew that it would be impossible to any human being to cross the Van Allen belts, like NASA says in its site quoted at May 17 2006, 08:01 PM.
2-The particles in the 1st Van Allen belt are protons and their mass are 1500 times bigger than the mass of an electron. As you can see in my post of May 17 2006, 08:01 PM their energy are 50 times greater than the energy of alpha particles from radioactive uranium 238, like NASA also says in its site. Of course, NASA doesn’t know that we are using it's site for the discussion of this subject at this moment. How can NASA says and at the same time say that the astronauts went to the Moon crossing these regions for twice??? isn't it strange??? http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wradbelt.html
3-ddeerrff as definitive answer says: If we didn't, how did the laser reflector get there? I didn’t answer ASAP because I was waiting a reply to a question I posted to a specialist in astrophysics that is a friend of mine and is American. Now I can answer to ddeerrff that on the Moon are not one but two laser reflectors both putted there with two unmanned probes. One was putted by NASA and the other was putted by the ex-USSR but with, as I said, with unmanned probes, not by any Apollo mission.
4-The flag was a normal flag without any mechanical parts and everybody saw it was waving!!! How can ddeerrff explain this? With a mechanical perturbation??? How if there weren’t any mechanical parts??? About the stars, there is a photo with Earth in background that we don’t see any star!!! Without atmosphere, we must see at least the brightest stars of the sky, like Vega, Sirius, Betelgeuse, Rigel, Canopus and many others!!! How the dynamic limited range of the film explain this anomaly??? It’s the same thing that when we take a photo to the moon, at night, we didn’t see any stars at all, even with the atmosphere of the Earth!!! I have dozens of them, which I can’t show here because I can’t attach anything to this mail, or I don’t know how to do it.
5-At last, the blast creator that must was there and it wasn’t. If the engine cut off before the arrival to the soil, the LEM would fall from the altitude were it was and it would crashed against the lunar soil, even with the low gravity of the Moon!!! About the amount of thrust, is one more reason for the crater created shall be a big one!!! Why the photos doesn't show it??? Until the next.

Regards,

Darthy

Hay there Darthy
I think you will want to join this society
they say they have proof of which they speak as well.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskop...arthsociety.htm

Why people expand such great amounts of energy trying to disprove the obvious I will never understand. There are plenty of other worthwhile things to do with your time.

In the first place the manned Apollo program placed three laser retroreflectors on the moon and the Soviet unmanned space program placed two (although contact with one of these was lost on landing). Unless math has changed greatly since I went to school this adds up to five (or four if you discount the lost Soviet probe), not two.

In the second place I am not going to expand great amounts of my time responding to this stuff, I do have plenty of other things I could and will soon be doing with my time.

While I seldom use wikipedia as a source, in this case it rebuts all the conspiracies on one page and in rather simple English that most people can understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_l...oax_accusations

For more in-depth details please feel free to visit this site:

http://www.clavius.org/

Hey you no one

Look no one, what I want are scientific facts not talk and trash like the site you sent to me.

Hi there Ronbo
I have to say to you that I've enough age to know what to do with my time. Thank's for your preocupation.

Like the manned Apollo program never sent a man to the Moon, like I intend to prove, they continue to exist only two laser reflectors on the Moon. Like I said to no one, what I want are scientific facts that strike what I've been saying into my previous mails.
Let me say one more thing:
If Iraq was on the Moon, the Bush Administration, Mr. Tony Blair and my former Prime Minister Mr. Durao Barroso will contine to say that there were weapons of mass destruction on it!!! Only Iraq is on the Earth and many people can go there.

simple solution. Get or go to a telescope that is powerful enough to see the lower half of the lunar modual that was left behind. The location is known. That should be proof enough.

Seafox14

I agree with you. I hope that the telescope would be constructed during my lifetime.

Regards,

Darthy

They already exist. check at an observatory near you. the someitmes will do moon watches.

Seafox14

A telescope so powerful like you said still not exists. Not on Earth neither in space.

Darthy

Actually it does now. Not a powerful one from earth but a camera in a vehicle orbiting the moon. It is just beginning to map the moon for future landings.



ARTICLE

Wow, has anyone ever heard of the Hubble Space Telescope?

The Hubble Space Telescope can see light years into space! However, sinec it is too powerful it can't zoom in on the moon. (It would be like using a pair of binoculars to read a newspaper 3 inches in front of you)

In addition, nothing on Earth has the strenth to zoom in on the moon close enough to actually see the flag, let alone footprints.