Three Things That Prove Moon Landing Conspiracies 100% False

Since some people appear confused, allow me to state: I AM ARGUING AGAINST MOON LANDING CONSPIRACIES, NOT FOR THEM.

In honor of the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing, I thought, what would be better than to disprove the BS about it never happening? So here are three things that are absolutely and entirely impossible without the Moon landing being true.

1. Moon rocks.

Specifically, the age of Moon rocks. Apollo Missions 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, and Luna Missions 16, 20 and 24 all returned with samples of Moon rocks (842 pounds worth altogether) that are radiometrically dated to be between 3.16 billion years old and 4.5 billion years old.

The oldest rocks on Earth are dated to be about 3.8 billion years old.

Now, the very existence of these rocks should be enough to prove moon landing conspiracies false all on their own, but the age of these rocks can utterly dissolve any claims that they are fake. How did NASA create fake rocks that are dated to be older than planet Earth? Were they cooking up this conspiracy before life existed in our solar system? How else could we have gotten almost a thousand pounds of rock older than Earth?

2. Mars rovers.

We've been to Mars. Yet we can't go to the Moon. Anybody see a problem yet? If not, move on to 3.

3. Moon dust.

Specifically, the way Moon dust blows away when the aircraft landed. The dust blew off in a parabolic trajectory. In English, that means the dust made a sort of curve in the air before going down. Like how, when you step really far away from the toilet, your pee has to make an arch upward before going down into the bowl.

This is physically impossible on Earth due to our gravity pull. On Earth, dust just blows aside. Don't believe me? Take a fan and blow some dust with it across your desk. It won't go up and down in a parabola no matter how hard you try.

So how did Nasa film something that can't be done on a landside studio? Did they turn gravity off while they filmed it? Did they ask their ol' pal, Merlin, for some help?

These are, of course, three CliffNotes versions of dozens (if not hundreds) of incontrovertable proofs that we have been to the Moon.

One thing you always hear from conspiracy theorists and people considering the theories is that "there's a lot of weird stuff about the Moon landing that doesn't make sense." And yet they believe that we can defy the physics of time and space in a 1960's Hollywood studio.

Discuss.

Why do you hate conspiracy theorists? They aren't bothering anyone with their tin hats...and scientology pamphlets

Not another Moon landing consipiracy! why must these threads continue! can't we all accept the fact that we've been to the moon?

So how did Nasa film something that can't be done on a landside studioTheokhoth

Why do you hate conspiracy theorists? They aren't bothering anyone with their tin hats...and scientology pamphlets

clayron

They're bothering me, and they're spreading false information and breeding a generation of idiots.

Not another Moon landing consipiracy! why must these threads continue! can't we all accept the fact that we've been to the moon?

WiiMan21

. . .Did. . .did you. . . did you even read the title? At all?

Not another Moon landing consipiracy! why must these threads continue! can't we all accept the fact that we've been to the moon?

WiiMan21

Good points, Theo. The conspiracynuts won't stop no matter how much truth you show them, though.

[QUOTE="WiiMan21"]

Not another Moon landing consipiracy! why must these threads continue! can't we all accept the fact that we've been to the moon?

Theokhoth

. . .Did. . .did you. . . did you even read the title? At all?

No I did, I also read the thread, I am also agreeing with you.

No matter how much proof you give them they will still think it was a hoax, like Ron White said, you cant fix stupid.

And the flag was blowing! :o No Wind on the Moon!

And the flag was blowing! :o No Wind on the Moon!

ps3wizard45

The flag never blew when it wasn't being touched.

Mythbusters just did a nice special busting all the conspiracy theories about the moon.

no one says we can't land on moon ATM,we say we weren't been able to achieve that at the so called time

No man, you're wrong. The moon landing was filmed in a studio.

On Saturn.

no one says we can't land on moon ATM,we say we weren't been able to achieve that at the so called time

VaguelyTagged

Goody; points one and three both prove that wrong.

In honor of the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing, I thought, what would be better than to disprove the BS about it never happening? So here are three things that are absolutely and entirely impossible without the Moon landing being true.

1. Moon rocks.

Specifically, the age of Moon rocks. Apollo Missions 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, and Luna Missions 16, 20 and 24 all returned with samples of Moon rocks (842 pounds worth altogether) that are radiometrically dated to be between 3.16 billion years old and 4.5 billion years old.

The oldest rocks on Earth are dated to be about 3.8 billion years old.

Now, the very existence of these rocks should be enough to prove moon landing conspiracies false all on their own, but the age of these rocks can utterly dissolve any claims that they are fake. How did NASA create fake rocks that are dated to be older than planet Earth? Were they cooking up this conspiracy before life existed in our solar system? How else could we have gotten almost a thousand pounds of rock older than Earth?

2. Mars rovers.

We've been to Mars. Yet we can't go to the Moon. Anybody see a problem yet? If not, move on to 3.

3. Moon dust.

Specifically, the way Moon dust blows away when the aircraft landed. The dust blew off in a parabolic trajectory. In English, that means the dust made a sort of curve in the air before going down. Like how, when you step really far away from the toilet, your pee has to make an arch upward before going down into the bowl.

This is physically impossible on Earth due to our gravity pull. On Earth, dust just blows aside. Don't believe me? Take a fan and blow some dust with it across your desk. It won't go up and down in a parabola no matter how hard you try.

So how did Nasa film something that can't be done on a landside studio? Did they turn gravity off while they filmed it? Did they ask their ol' pal, Merlin, for some help?

These are, of course, three CliffNotes versions of dozens (if not hundreds) of incontrovertable proofs that we have been to the Moon.

One thing you always hear from conspiracy theorists and people considering the theories is that "there's a lot of weird stuff about the Moon landing that doesn't make sense." And yet they believe that we can defy the physics of time and space in a 1960's Hollywood studio.

Discuss.

Theokhoth

One more thing that would prove conspiracy theorists wrong is the fact that the russians didn't say anything when USA landed on the moon. The russians were monitoring everything that USA did and the russians them self knew that USA has landed on the moon. If USA didn't land on the moon, the russians would have know about it and would have made sure that the whole world knew that USA is lieing.

Conspiracy theorists are bunch of people who don't have anything to do during the day and come up with this weird crap.

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

no one says we can't land on moon ATM,we say we weren't been able to achieve that at the so called time

Theokhoth

Goody; points one and three both prove that wrong.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

no one says we can't land on moon ATM,we say we weren't been able to achieve that at the so called time

VaguelyTagged

Goody; points one and three both prove that wrong.

Radiometric dating is the most accurate method of dating rocks and fossils in the world; even if it wasn't accurate, it STILL places the age of the Earth at .8 billion years younger than the youngest Moon rocks.

Saying "it's possible it's fake" is like saying "it's possible they traveled back in time and used magic to make it happen." It defies physics and is no more possible than Genie popping out of Aladdin and making me the Prince of Agrabah.

i agree

why would we spend all the money just to fake it.

still you can't deny the possibility of it being faked VaguelyTagged

Yes. Yes, we can. Dust does not neatly fall back down to the ground in a perfectly parabolic trajectory when there is an atmosphere. To fake that, you would have had to evacuate all air from the entire studio in which it was being filmed. This is something we can't even do today, let alone in the 1960s.

Until people can explain the trajectory of the dust kicked up, those believing the video footage was not from the moon are completely without an argument.

They bought those moon rocks and dust from another country. :PChicaQueenWarGa

nobosy else went to the moon:P

All I continue to ask is if the moon landing was faked -- the Soviet Union would have EASILY have known and WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY shown the world that the USA faked it.

So, I ask all you conspiracy believers, did the Soviet Union tell the world it was faked?

that doesnt disprove anything. If NASA faked the moon landing, why wouldnt they just make up the three points you stated. MetallicaKings

Because NASA does not have access to the Godly powers of omnipotence necessary for those three points to be false?

that doesnt disprove anything. If NASA faked the moon landing, why wouldnt they just make up the three points you stated.MetallicaKings

It is impossible to fake a parabolic dust trajectory in a studio with an atmosphere. If they had somehow weighted the dust, it would not have been kicked up as high as it was. The initial trajectory is consistent with what is seen on Earth, and the resulting trajectory thereafter is consistent with an environment with no atmosphere.

Thus, unless someone wants to claim that NASA edited in dust frame-by-frame in all of the video footage available - in the 1960s, no less -there is no other possible conclusion but that the footage is genuine.

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Goody; points one and three both prove that wrong.

Theokhoth

Radiometric dating is the most accurate method of dating rocks and fossils in the world; even if it wasn't accurate, it STILL places the age of the Earth at .8 billion years younger than the youngest Moon rocks.

Saying "it's possible it's fake" is like saying "it's possible they traveled back in time and used magic to make it happen." It defies physics and is no more possible than Genie popping out of Aladdin and making me the Prince of Agrabah.

[QUOTE="MetallicaKings"]that doesnt disprove anything. If NASA faked the moon landing, why wouldnt they just make up the three points you stated.GabuEx

It is impossible to fake a parabolic dust trajectory in a studio with an atmosphere. If they had somehow weighted the dust, it would not have been kicked up as high as it was. The initial trajectory is consistent with what is seen on Earth, and the resulting trajectory thereafter is consistent with an environment with no atmosphere.

Thus, unless someone wants to claim that NASA edited in dust frame-by-frame in all of the video footage available - in the 1960s, no less -there is no other possible conclusion but that the footage is genuine.

There's more holes in your "proof" then there is in a block of swiss cheese.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MetallicaKings"]that doesnt disprove anything. If NASA faked the moon landing, why wouldnt they just make up the three points you stated.MetallicaKings

It is impossible to fake a parabolic dust trajectory in a studio with an atmosphere. If they had somehow weighted the dust, it would not have been kicked up as high as it was. The initial trajectory is consistent with what is seen on Earth, and the resulting trajectory thereafter is consistent with an environment with no atmosphere.

Thus, unless someone wants to claim that NASA edited in dust frame-by-frame in all of the video footage available - in the 1960s, no less -there is no other possible conclusion but that the footage is genuine.

There's more holes in your "proof" then there is in a block of swiss cheese.

LightR

What are those holes?

Didnt Mythbusters prove the moon landings were real already?

Why are people debating this?:?

Not another Moon landing consipiracy! why must these threads continue! can't we all accept the fact that we've been to the moon?

WiiMan21

There's more holes in your "proof" then there is in a block of swiss cheese.

LightR

Such as? :roll:

[QUOTE="LightR"]

There's more holes in your "proof" then there is in a block of swiss cheese.

GabuEx

What are those holes?

In honor of the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing, I thought, what would be better than to disprove the BS about it never happening? So here are three things that are absolutely and entirely impossible without the Moon landing being true.

"1. Moon rocks.

Specifically, the age of Moon rocks. Apollo Missions 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, and Luna Missions 16, 20 and 24 all returned with samples of Moon rocks (842 pounds worth altogether) that are radiometrically dated to be between 3.16 billion years old and 4.5 billion years old.

The oldest rocks on Earth are dated to be about 3.8 billion years old.

Now, the very existence of these rocks should be enough to prove moon landing conspiracies false all on their own, but the age of these rocks can utterly dissolve any claims that they are fake. How did NASA create fake rocks that are dated to be older than planet Earth? Were they cooking up this conspiracy before life existed in our solar system? How else could we have gotten almost a thousand pounds of rock older than Earth?"

It doesn't mean the rocks on Earth they tested where the oldest there is on Earth. I know that there is so much space dust or other material added to Earth every and after millions of years the oldest rocks, I'd think, would become buried and go to the bottom. They'd be far down enough that we couldn't reach them because of the Earth's interior heat. Humans can only dig so far, even with the technolodgy of today.It is said we know more about the moon then we do the Earth insides. Some of these rocks would eventually have reached the point where they would have become magma and reached the surface again. This cycle could have happened a couple times also. If so would they keep there date of how old they are or be "reborn" because they have been remade and their age set back to zero? Now the moon doesn't have a molten core so it's rocks would never go through this process and would stay at there old age. If you can prove me wrong then do so because I'm just going on theory and not fact. Since the moon doesn't have an atmosphereall of themetoers wouldn't desolve and would reach the moons surface without burning up. So the moon could be could with millions of rocks older then itself.

"2. Mars rovers.

We've been to Mars. Yet we can't go to the Moon. Anybody see a problem yet? If not, move on to 3."

If we can go to mars, then can't we go to the moon?

"3. Moon dust.

Specifically, the way Moon dust blows away when the aircraft landed. The dust blew off in a parabolic trajectory. In English, that means the dust made a sort of curve in the air before going down. Like how, when you step really far away from the toilet, your pee has to make an arch upward before going down into the bowl.

This is physically impossible on Earth due to our gravity pull. On Earth, dust just blows aside. Don't believe me? Take a fan and blow some dust with it across your desk. It won't go up and down in a parabola no matter how hard you try.

So how did Nasa film something that can't be done on a landside studio? Did they turn gravity off while they filmed it? Did they ask their ol' pal, Merlin, for some help?

These are, of course, three CliffNotes versions of dozens (if not hundreds) of incontrovertable proofs that we have been to the Moon.

One thing you always hear from conspiracy theorists and people considering the theories is that "there's a lot of weird stuff about the Moon landing that doesn't make sense." And yet they believe that we can defy the physics of time and space in a 1960's Hollywood studio.

Discuss."

I think GabuEX already explained this. You say it's impossible for it to happen on Earth but then you say it's like peeing far away from a toilet which is on Earth, so I'm confused. Most of your ideas almost prove to me that it's 100% real other then fake.

And the flag was blowing! :o No Wind on the Moon!

ps3wizard45

LightR

Er, I think there's been some misunderstanding here... Theokhoth is proving that the moon landing was real. :P

It doesn't mean the rocks on Earth they tested where the oldest there is on Earth. I know that there is so much space dust or other material added to Earth every and after millions of years the oldest rocks, I'd think, would become buried and go to the bottom. They'd be far down enough that we couldn't reach them because of the Earth's interior heat. Humans can only dig so far, even with the technolodgy of today.It is said we know more about the moon then we do the Earth insides. Some of these rocks would eventually have reached the point where they would have become magma and reached the surface again. This cycle could have happened a couple times also. If so would they keep there date of how old they are or be "reborn" because they have been remade and their age set back to zero? Now the moon doesn't have a molten core so it's rocks would never go through this process and would stay at there old age. If you can prove me wrong then do so because I'm just going on theory and not fact.

I'll say. Exactly what are your sources for the claims in red? What makes you think geologists aren't aware of this fact?

"2. Mars rovers.

We've been to Mars. Yet we can't go to the Moon. Anybody see a problem yet? If not, move on to 3."

If we can go to mars, then can't we go to the moon?

Er, yeah, that's kinda the point. We've been to the Moon. We don't need to go to the Moon again for a while, though, because in the eleven times that we've been there, we have everything we need. . .and space travel is expensive.

"3. Moon dust.

Specifically, the way Moon dust blows away when the aircraft landed. The dust blew off in a parabolic trajectory. In English, that means the dust made a sort of curve in the air before going down. Like how, when you step really far away from the toilet, your pee has to make an arch upward before going down into the bowl.

This is physically impossible on Earth due to our gravity pull. On Earth, dust just blows aside. Don't believe me? Take a fan and blow some dust with it across your desk. It won't go up and down in a parabola no matter how hard you try.

So how did Nasa film something that can't be done on a landside studio? Did they turn gravity off while they filmed it? Did they ask their ol' pal, Merlin, for some help?

These are, of course, three CliffNotes versions of dozens (if not hundreds) of incontrovertable proofs that we have been to the Moon.

One thing you always hear from conspiracy theorists and people considering the theories is that "there's a lot of weird stuff about the Moon landing that doesn't make sense." And yet they believe that we can defy the physics of time and space in a 1960's Hollywood studio.

Discuss."

I think GabuEX already explained this. You say it's impossible for it to happen on Earth but then you say it's like peeing far away from a toilet which is on Earth, so I'm confused. Most of your ideas almost prove to me that it's 100% real other then fake.

Gabu explained this in my favor, and the pissing example was to show what a parabola looks like. Dust can't be blown in a parabolic trajectory in Earth's atmosphere; it is impossible.

And WTF are you talking about? I'm not arguing for the conspiracies; I'm arguing against them. Don't people read anymore?

LightR

Well knowing America I really doubt they would fake it.

I only have four words for the conspiracy buffs: Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

End of story

[QUOTE="LightR"]GabuEx

Er, I think there's been some misunderstanding here... Theokhoth is proving that the moon landing was real. :P

Yes, that is correct.

Well there is a film tonight on Discovery that was shot by the only filmmaker NASA give exclusive rights to, to film the events leading up to the Moon Landing. That should put pay to all you conspiracy nuts.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="LightR"]chessmaster1989

Er, I think there's been some misunderstanding here... Theokhoth is proving that the moon landing was real. :P

Yes, that is correct.

Well now I'm off to go live the rest of my life in some cave far away from civilization...