Fake Moon Landings

Page: 1 2 3
ID:190811
 
Dec 5 2002, 4:13 pm
Well, today, my friends and I were talking about the Fake Moon Landings. We also talked about Tupac Shekuar (sp) and how he's alive. It was all wierd.

What do you guys think about this stuff?

I think Tupac Shekuar is alive. And I DO think the USA landed on the moon.
Dec 5 2002, 4:32 pm
FNORD
Dec 5 2002, 6:02 pm
In response to Tetra Byte
Tetra Byte wrote:
FNORD

What the heck is that stand for?
Dec 5 2002, 6:42 pm
I think if you think about something long enough you can prove/disprove anything.
-DogMan
Dec 5 2002, 6:53 pm
Shakur

And I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist... I believe that we really landed on the moon, and I believe Tupac is dead...
Dec 5 2002, 11:03 pm
I think that any conspiracy theory should at least be looked at. If you can find little or no supporting evidence, toss it out. Otherwise, examine it more closely. If after repeated close examination it seems quite probable, then - and only then - can you say "maybe there's something in this". I make a point of not believing outright in any conspiracy theory until I've gone through this process.

I believe that the USA did land on the moon. I know almost nothing about Tupac, but I am fairly certain that more than one gunman killed JFK. (Yeah, yeah, stamp on that if you want. I can believe what I want to believe, alright? :-) )
Dec 5 2002, 11:36 pm
In response to Crispy
Crispy wrote:
I think that any conspiracy theory should at least be looked at.

You must have a lot of free time.

There will always be more silly theories than there is time to thoroughly investigate them all. Therefore, thorough investigation of all theories is a waste of time that will reduce your total knowledge of the universe.

The person proposing a wacky theory holds the burden to prove themselves correct. The rest of us do not have the burden to check out every wacky theory that comes along.

During discussion of 9/11, I got some great new wacky theory stuff.

For example, what do you think caused the explosion at the Oklahoma Federal building a few years back? Could it be the truck filled with explosives that was driven up to the front and detonated?

Of course not, you fool! Clearly that truck had nothing to do with it. Typical obfuscation designed to throw you off track. It's obvious that the explosion actually came from a "personal nuclear device" from inside the building.

So there you have it. When presented with this theory should a person believe in:

a) the explosive-filled truck

b) the personal nuclear device

c) withhold judgment until thorough investigation

I'm gonna go with A and have plenty of time left over for my morning coffee.

<font size=-1>Yeah I know that once in a blue moon a wacky theory -- even a wacky conspiracy theory -- turns out to be true. It's also true that of 3 million people signing up for a lottery, one of them might win. It's wise not to try and bet on which one.</font>
Dec 6 2002, 12:46 am
In response to Deadron
Deadron wrote:
Therefore, thorough investigation of all theories is a waste of time that will reduce your total knowledge of the universe.

Of all theories yes, of some theories no. I dont see how it could reduce your knowlage of the universe. Knowing why the theory is right or wrong can only increase it.
Although you could be doing something better with your life then ivestigating mysteries Scooby-Doo style, and increase your universal knowlage more.
-DogMan
Dec 6 2002, 1:12 am
I think the fact that the moon landing "looks fake" is the best evidence that it's real. If it was made using Hollywood-style special effects on a Hollywood-style sound stage, the government would've given people what they wanted... what they expected to see, instead of leaving in the "inaccuracies" that low-rent conspiracy enthusiasts harp on.

The conspiracy enthusiasts say that you can tell the footage is fake because the flag is rippling in the wind. NASA says that's just an example of the laws of physics: in a low-gravity, atmosphere-free environment, a flag in motion tends to stay in motion. Conspiracy enthusiasts refute this, saying that it's just a contrived story to cover their asses.

So, when you get right down to it... the question is this: what's harder to believe, that humanity has walked on the moon, or that the best and brightest brains the American government could find wouldn't know that the moon has no air?
Dec 6 2002, 1:37 am
In response to Lesbian Assassin
Lesbian Assassin wrote:
The conspiracy enthusiasts say that you can tell the footage is fake because the flag is rippling in the wind. NASA says that's just an example of the laws of physics: in a low-gravity, atmosphere-free environment, a flag in motion tends to stay in motion. Conspiracy enthusiasts refute this, saying that it's just a contrived story to cover their asses.

You know those physicists: always contriving new laws to keep the common man down. What are these inertia and air friction and why haven't I heard of them before? :P
Dec 6 2002, 3:57 am
In response to Dog Man
Dog Man wrote:
Knowing why the theory is right or wrong can only increase it.

You miss his point. In the time it takes you to go through all the trouble to argue with the nutty logic that makes up most conspiracy theories, you could have learned a lot of other things. Your total net gain of universal knowledge is therefore less.
Dec 6 2002, 7:17 am (Edited on Dec 6 2002, 7:40 am)
In response to Skysaw
 
Apollo      Launch       Landing
mission      Date          Date         Landing Site       Latitude     Longitude
-------     ------       -------        ------------       ---------    ---------
  11     16 Jul 1969   20 Jul 1969  Mare Tranquillitatis    0.674 N      23.473 E
  12     14 Nov 1969   19 Nov 1969  Oceanus Procellarum     3.014 S      23.419 W
  14     31 Jan 1971   05 Feb 1971       Fra Mauro          3.645 S      17.471 W
  15     26 Jul 1971   30 Jul 1971     Hadley Rille        26.132 N       3.634 E
  16     16 Apr 1972   20 Apr 1972       Descartes          8.973 S      15.499 E
  17     07 Dec 1972   11 Dec 1972    Taurus-Littrow       20.188 N      30.775 E

(http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ apollo_tables.html)

I understand that with a sufficiently powerful enough telescope (high-end Meads come to mind), you can look in locations listed above and see the remains of the lower stages/landing platform of the Lunar-Lander modules (no longer needed), especially when the suns hits them just right.

Since these are the only objects of their kind on the Moon, it kinda blows the 'fake moon mission' theories away I would think.

Being an amatuer astronomer (I built a 6 inch Dobsonian back in 1989 - but I never got the optics quite right), I would imagine that modern telescope techniques, including the use of modern radar and radio telescope technologies, could easily pinpoint where the old lander equipment resides on the moon - forever shutting up the theorists. I bet this has been done already, but the conspiracy nuts have shouted louder. Some people would do anything to say they are right...
Dec 6 2002, 7:59 am
In response to Lesbian Assassin
Theres oxygen all over space, found in pockets that couldnt possibly sustain a single human being.

Space is also a vaccuum, which might create wind. who knows.

wind is created by the motion of the earth, the moon rotates around the earth, so who is to say that the moon has no wind?

Wind doesnt necessarily have to carry enough oxygen to sustain human life.

Here is a good question in regards to the moonlanding, which i dont personally give a crap about.

How did they film the first actual landing without landing first to setup the camera?
Dec 6 2002, 8:08 am
In response to Skysaw
universal knowledge cant be measured therefore your theory is unfounded.

I could have an equally good chance at the understanding of universal knowledge sitting at home and daydreaming compared to going out and meeting people.

Its really simply up to each individual
Dec 6 2002, 8:12 am
In response to Sariat
Four Naked Off-the-wall Redneck Drunks
Dec 6 2002, 8:55 am
In response to Dareb
Dareb wrote:
How did they film the first actual landing without
landing first to setup the camera?

They didn't - the film of the landing was from an onboard camera, showing the descent and touchdown where you next hear 'Houston this is Tranquility Base - the Eagle has landed.'

What you may be referring to is footage of the ascent stage of the lunar lander as it lifts off - there was a remote camera set up for that departure, but I don't think they did that on the first landing (I'd have to check).
Dec 6 2002, 8:59 am
In response to digitalmouse
They could've dropped a camera on a parachute first.
Dec 6 2002, 9:09 am
In response to Dareb
Dareb wrote:
universal knowledge cant be measured therefore your theory is unfounded.

I could have an equally good chance at the understanding of universal knowledge sitting at home and daydreaming compared to going out and meeting people.

Its really simply up to each individual

First of all, it wasn't MY theory, I was simply explaining what I thought Deadron was saying.

Secondly, it can be quite plain to see that something has increased, even if you can't measure it. When you learn something, you've learned it. Not knowing how much of the universal picture has been uncovered has little to do with the simple observation that more of it has been uncovered.
Dec 6 2002, 9:12 am
In response to digitalmouse
What you may be referring to is footage of the ascent stage of the lunar lander as it lifts off - there was a remote camera set up for that departure, but I don't think they did that on the first landing (I'd have to check).

There was a camera on one of the feet of the lunar module that shot up towards the door and ladder. There was plenty of footage of the first landing, and this is how it was done.
Dec 6 2002, 9:18 am
In response to digitalmouse
Page: 1 2 3