Who believes man landed on the moon?

if they started mining on the moon would they find anything like oil and precious metals. and if they did can a single country claim rights to the moon?

pictures of starlight = time-lapse photography. Starlight isn't bright enough (like so many people on these forums) for shutter speeds like the astronauts were using.

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]

[QUOTE="AmyMizuno"]One of the astronauts brought a golf-ball to the moon, and you can still see it there today with a telescope.mingo123

Actually you cant. Those things are too small to see with telescopes.. It says on Wikipedia.

yeah lol if telescopes were that powerful, NASA would probably wud have found life on some other planet by now

Most likely :P

What, do you mean after 1972?

MrGeezer

i dont think any man has landed on moon yet (except me ofcourse) but anyways tell me why they havent been to (which was fake) moon after 1972? why do they have to wait till 2018 to go to teh moon when they already went there so many years ago, they should be able to build a new shuttle in like 1 year in this age yet it will take them so many years to go back, i wonderz whyz lolcat

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

What, do you mean after 1972?

mingo123

i dont think any man has landed on moon yet (except me ofcourse) but anyways tell me why they havent been to (which was fake) moon after 1972? why do they have to wait till 2018 to go to teh moon when they already went there so many years ago, they should be able to build a new shuttle in like 1 year in this age yet it will take them so many years to go back, i wonderz whyz lolcat

It takes time to plan it, we can't use the Shuttles, so we need to build another Moon Rocket, and because we can't use 1970s tech we have to make a totally new one. With the way goverment works that can't take just a year.

[QUOTE="mingo123"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

What, do you mean after 1972?

Chaos_HL21

i dont think any man has landed on moon yet (except me ofcourse) but anyways tell me why they havent been to (which was fake) moon after 1972? why do they have to wait till 2018 to go to teh moon when they already went there so many years ago, they should be able to build a new shuttle in like 1 year in this age yet it will take them so many years to go back, i wonderz whyz lolcat

It takes time to plan it, we can't use the Shuttles, so we need to build another Moon Rocket, and because we can't use 1970s tech we have to make a totally new one. With the way goverment works that can't take just a year.

whatever it takes, it sure as **** wont take till 2018 when same NASA already successfully (:lol: ) sent man on moon in.......1960s haha

whatever it takes, it sure as **** wont take till 2018 when same NASA already successfully (:lol: ) sent man on moon in.......1960s haha

mingo123

I'm not sure about that anymore. This country doesn't seem to be able to successfully complete any large projects anymore...

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

What, do you mean after 1972?

mingo123

i dont think any man has landed on moon yet (except me ofcourse) but anyways tell me why they havent been to (which was fake) moon after 1972? why do they have to wait till 2018 to go to teh moon when they already went there so many years ago, they should be able to build a new shuttle in like 1 year in this age yet it will take them so many years to go back, i wonderz whyz lolcat

I already told you why, you're just trying to look daft. Humans haen't been back to the moon after 1972 because we hae "ro-bots".

Do you have any idea how costly it is to send people into space? Do you know what happens when someone dies in space? The space program pretty much grounded until they can figure out what went wrong and how to ensure it will neer happen again. This requires lengthy inquiries into the problem, it results in the loss of extremely aluable astronauts. Furthermore, it causes people to lose faith in the space program, resulting in things like budget cuts. WHY THE HELL would NASA send humans to the moon (which also requires wasting resources on costly life-support systems) when they can simply send a non-liing non-breathing robot for far less money? If a robot crashes on Mars, nobody has to deal with the total ****storm that happens each time one of our "safe" space shuttles blows up.

That's PRECISELY why no humans hae set foot on the moon in almost 35 years. Because when you hae robots that can perform the mission at less cost and without anyone DYING, there isn't ONE good reason to send a human.

There's no question about it. Proof: The Russians never complained about it. If the US did fake the moon landing, there's no way in hell the russians would've let them get away with it.DeeJayInphinity

Of course we've been to the moon. Just think about all the cheese that is consumed everyday. You don't honestly think that that cheese is all from earth, do you?omfg_its_dally

/thread

LOL, I can feel myself getting dumber as I read some of these posts.

842lbs of lunar samples were returned from the 6 Apollo missions that landed on the moon. How do we know they are moon rocks and not earth rocks? Because every rock found on earth has some water locked into its mineral structure, even those from the driest desert, but lunar rocks are totally dry.

Also, the proportions of volatile and refractory elements present in lunar samples are different than terrestrial rocks.

[QUOTE="mingo123"]

whatever it takes, it sure as **** wont take till 2018 when same NASA already successfully (:lol: ) sent man on moon in.......1960s haha

Engrish_Major

I'm not sure about that anymore. This country doesn't seem to be able to successfully complete any large projects anymore...

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="mingo123"]

whatever it takes, it sure as **** wont take till 2018 when same NASA already successfully (:lol: ) sent man on moon in.......1960s haha

DeeJayInphinity

I'm not sure about that anymore. This country doesn't seem to be able to successfully complete any large projects anymore...

Not necessarily true, we do now need people on the moon, which is why there are now plans in works to establish a permanent base and refuling center on the moon for future manned missions to and from mars. The moon will be used to train astronaughts for life on another planet and it will be used as a repair/refueling center for missions to other planets, specifically in this case: Mars. As i recall, the viability of a manned mars mission relies on the success of the Moon mission.

Also, manned missions can be very important. 2 men can do far more in a day than one robot can, which have very limited mobility and are still somewhat limited in functionality even today, whereas a man can walk out with a shovel and just start digging and get what he wants in 10 minutes.

Not necessarily true, we do now need people on the moon, which is why there are now plans in works to establish a permanent base and refuling center on the moon for future manned missions to and from mars. The moon will be used to train astronaughts for life on another planet and it will be used as a repair/refueling center for missions to other planets, specifically in this case: Mars. As i recall, the viability of a manned mars mission relies on the success of the Moon mission.

Also, manned missions can be very important. 2 men can do far more in a day than one robot can, which have very limited mobility and are still somewhat limited in functionality even today, whereas a man can walk out with a shovel and just start digging and get what he wants in 10 minutes.

Tolwan

I certainly have my doubts aboutit, but I don't think it matters to me as much as other theories/facts.

[QUOTE="Tolwan"]

Not necessarily true, we do now need people on the moon, which is why there are now plans in works to establish a permanent base and refuling center on the moon for future manned missions to and from mars. The moon will be used to train astronaughts for life on another planet and it will be used as a repair/refueling center for missions to other planets, specifically in this case: Mars. As i recall, the viability of a manned mars mission relies on the success of the Moon mission.

Also, manned missions can be very important. 2 men can do far more in a day than one robot can, which have very limited mobility and are still somewhat limited in functionality even today, whereas a man can walk out with a shovel and just start digging and get what he wants in 10 minutes.

DeeJayInphinity

There's also other factors, beyond exploration, that will keep manned missions all important - Future Colonization and human expansion into space. Most NASA officials and scientists are futurists, so the overarching long-term goal is to expand human operations and even settlements into space itself. I believe Steven Hawking said it best when he said the one and true way to ensure humanities survival is to set up a colony on another world. Once that is done, humanity becomes a hell of a lot harder to kill off.

So several long-term goals including corporate expansion, military presence (They have plans in the books for a fighter capable of traveling outside earth's atmosphere, even fighting outside it, that could be completed within 30 years), exploration, and colonization. Lots and lots of reasons for men to be in space, which is why i am always a strict and true proponent of Manned missions into space.

I feel you on the youtube thing^^

but skeptics have been on national TV debating it. I want to believe they went but i can't honestly say i know for certain, It's so much secret and crazy stuff going on around the world now. I tell you what I would love to do.........watching a shuttle or rocket launch in person would be nice.

Anyway, If you have a Million bucks you can take a trip around the moon. Virgin Atlantic Tours.

Check this out

money.cnn.com/2005/08/10/news/funny/moontrip/index.htm

--

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"][QUOTE="Matt-4542"]

Ive seen several videos debunking the landing aswell as a video which shows a crew member in the background of the set picking something off the floor and jumping out of frame quickly. Ive also watched tv programs on the History channel debating this topic. Ive heard the Government either sped up or slowed down (Cant remember which) to make it look like there was less gravity, and there are no stars in any of the pictures, when there wouldve been seeing as there is no lights on the Moon AND obviously theyre in space so youre going to see stars.mingo123

We did not go to the moon to take pictures of the stars, we went to the moon to take pictures of the moon, the way the cameras where set up didn't pick up the stars.

that was a pretty funny joke

[QUOTE="mingo123"][QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"][QUOTE="Matt-4542"]

Ive seen several videos debunking the landing aswell as a video which shows a crew member in the background of the set picking something off the floor and jumping out of frame quickly. Ive also watched tv programs on the History channel debating this topic. Ive heard the Government either sped up or slowed down (Cant remember which) to make it look like there was less gravity, and there are no stars in any of the pictures, when there wouldve been seeing as there is no lights on the Moon AND obviously theyre in space so youre going to see stars.PannicAtack

We did not go to the moon to take pictures of the stars, we went to the moon to take pictures of the moon, the way the cameras where set up didn't pick up the stars.

that was a pretty funny joke

Actually, you're wrong too. The stars were most certainly isible to the astronauts. On the moon, the sky is always black (day or night) and the stars are isible around the clock. This is because there's no atmosphere on the moon.

The reason stars aren't isible on the moon is the exact same reason why the stars don't show up in nighttime photography on earth. This is apparent to anyone who has eer taken a picture at night. You hae the background and the foreground. Typically stars are the background, while people doing stuff at night is happening in the foreground. Unless you specifically want stars to appear in the picture, you're gonna set the exposure to the foreground. Since the foreground is brighter, this requires lowering the exposure, which results in the stars NOT showing up on film. This is why you can't see stars in the footage, and you can easily demonstrate this same principle by going outside tonight and taking a flash picture of your friend/dog/tree/garbage can.

All "eidence" that the moon landing is fake is exactly like this. It's only "eidence" to people who don't know what they are talking about. If they weren't so ignorant, they'd see that there is NOT ONE THING suggesting that the moon landings were faked.

On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.

--

I just noticed that there is stuff all over the net about this.....wow

--

-PaCMaN-

On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.

--

I just noticed that there is stuff all over the net about this.....wow

--

-PaCMaN-

On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.

--

I just noticed that there is stuff all over the net about this.....wow

--

-PaCMaN-

here we go

photos from link below

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_11_30th.html

No because the flag was moving which means wind, and there was no wind up there.zeppelin_64

Debunked a thousand times. The flag pole was twisted while they secured it in the ground, causing the flag to move. It's not a stiff board you know, just moving the pole is going to make the flag move, no friction to completely stop it dead, and there is also gravity on the moon, however light, that can also effect it. Simple answer - You're wrong.

No because the flag was moving which means wind, and there was no wind up there.zeppelin_64

[QUOTE="-PaCMaN-"]

On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.

--

I just noticed that there is stuff all over the net about this.....wow

--

ishoturface

Yes, because I'm not retarded.A_Tarkovsky

haha, are we sure about that...

anyway if there isn't any wind how is the flag moving..... now that i looked at it in the photos.

here we go

photos from link below

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_11_30th.html

-PaCMaN-

Yes I do. I can't wait to go there sometime too. :DNintendo-Nerd

got a million to spare and you can.

money.cnn.com/2005/08/10/news/funny/moontrip/index.htm

wish it is true.

--

[QUOTE="A_Tarkovsky"]Yes, because I'm not retarded.-PaCMaN-

haha, are we sure about that...

anyway if there isn't any wind how is the flag moving..... now that i looked at it in the photos.

Inertia? He has to move the pole to get it in the ground, and then he twisted it to secure it in the dirt. The movement started the flag to move, and since there is no air, no friction, and no strong amount of gravity, there is nothing to really stop the flag from moving for a while. So it moves.

[QUOTE="-PaCMaN-"]

[QUOTE="A_Tarkovsky"]Yes, because I'm not retarded.Tolwan

haha, are we sure about that...

anyway if there isn't any wind how is the flag moving..... now that i looked at it in the photos.

Inertia? He has to move the pole to get it in the ground, and then he twisted it to secure it in the dirt. The movement started the flag to move, and since there is no air, no friction, and no strong amount of gravity, there is nothing to really stop the flag from moving for a while. So it moves.

makes some sense... i understood it in your other post, sought of like nothing to stop the momentum is what you're saying. it just looks like the flag was blowing on a windy day. :)

--

anyway if there isn't any wind how is the flag moving..... now that i looked at it in the photos.

-PaCMaN-

Because it ISN'T blowing. It's just crumpled up.

[QUOTE="-PaCMaN-"]

anyway if there isn't any wind how is the flag moving..... now that i looked at it in the photos.

MrGeezer

Because it ISN'T blowing. It's just crumpled up.

haha...hmmm

--

I was an event that explored the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Anyway, Buzz Aldrin was there. He punched a conspiracy theorist in the face. Therefore, he is the most awesome person alive.

* goes to look for some live footage *

--

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="-PaCMaN-"]

anyway if there isn't any wind how is the flag moving..... now that i looked at it in the photos.

-PaCMaN-

Because it ISN'T blowing. It's just crumpled up.

haha...hmmm

--

It's a fact, look it up. The flag was on an extending pole, in order to sae space on the shuttle. The astronauts were not able to get the pole to extend all the way out, which left the flag with ripples in it, which makes the flag look like it's blowing in the wind.

99.9% of conspiracy theories are complete crap.mattyftm