Do you think we landed on the moon?

[Jpsousa]

Just wanted to see how people felt on this subject...

Feel free to debate about it as much as you like!  '>

[Arbutus]

Haha, I have a great-uncle who raves about how we didn't really land on the moon. It was staged in a Hollywood studio, apparently.

[Dragonfox]

People who claim we didn't land there annoy me.

Here's why I think it was real:

Movie/TV special effects at that time were not that advanced.  We could, and have, recreated it with modern technology, but they didn't have advanced CGI programs and the Vomit Comet (plane designed to allow for zero-G training) back then.

[Shabbernigdo]

We landed on the moon. All those who say we dident are just the type to deni anything even if u show them tons of proof.
There they type that belive in Bigfoot and eskimos.





Jk on the eskimo part.

[Willy]

Hmm, you left out the possible answer "who cares?" '> Weather we did or didn't, It makes no difference to me '> I've never thought about it, so I null my vote.

[Kobuk]

We landed. Pure and simple. Movie making technology and special effects just weren't that advanced back in 1969 to fake a moon landing. Next thing you know, you'll have us believeing the moon is really made of cheese, or the Earth is hollow, or aliens are kept at Hangar 18 at Wright-Patterson AFB, or UFO's are at Area 51. Conspiracies are nothing but 99.99% lies, rumors, half-truths, etc. Until someone actually comes forth with audio, visual, written, or some other form of proof, then I'm not going to believe them.

[Mikael GRizzly]

I agree totally with Sno... Kobuk (still getting used to the change '> ). There is no hard, cold facts AGAINST the fact we landed there (of course the final proof of the landing will come with the first commercial flight to the Moon (you know, tourists and such).

Besides, it's 36 years after the landing, why should the USG keep deceiving us if the landing was a fake?
Also, Aldrin (I think) is a living proof of it. He been there, done that, returned.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but only when treated as fiction. If they're taken as facts... they're dangerous...

In the meantime, as conspiracy theorists battle, let's sit back and sip on a can of Mountain Dew...

[Kobuk]

*sits back along with Mikael and sips a cold Dew with him*

Even though I mentioned that conspiracy theories and such were/are 99% BS, sometimes there is that 1% of truth that is lurking out there. The problem is that you have to know where and how to find it. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack. If a person is going to blurt out something like they saw Elvis talking with George Bush or whatever, then they'd better darn well back up their claim with some tangible proof otherwise no one is going to believe them.
The worst possible conspiracies have to do with aliens, UFO's, and Area 51. I wish I had a $1 for every nutcase that came forward with fantastic claims about such stuff. I'd be richer than Bill Gates!  '>  But here's two things that I DO believe:

1. I do believe that an alien craft crashed near Roswell, New Mexico back in July 1947. There's simply too much circumstantial evidence, too many witnesses saw and/or heard stuff, Most testimony made by witnesses over the past decades has been fairly the same from one person to the next, and the military covered up the incident really, really fast.

2. Aliens and alien craft are NOT stored at Area 51 (Groom Lake, NV). How do I know this? Well, I happen to have another hobby and it involves researching Stealth aircraft and Top Secret gov't black projects, the stuff your leaders don't want you to know about and are wasting your tax dollars on. I've spent the last 15 years researching Area 51 and can find no evidence to suggest that alien craft and aliens are kept there. There are projects going on there but they are all projects that deal with more conventional looking aircraft and aircraft technologies. In fact, here's a link to a pic of my bookshelf.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/icyhusky/DSC00728.jpg
The bookshelf below the one holding the paperback novels holds a vast majority of books relating to Stealth aircraft and black project stuff. The shelf above the paperbacks also holds more. The shelf at the very bottom where the colored pencils are holds  3-ring binders full of magazine and newspaper articles that I've dug up.

But in a nutshell, a person or story is only as good as the research that is done for it. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

[Sleet]

Somehow, NASA just doesn't strike me as one to pull a "Let's not and say we did!" on the world. Plus, I wouldn't see a point. Yeah, we landed on the moon.

[Rune]

I think we did. I had a site that countered every reason people think we didn't, but I lost it.

[Taren]

I don't think so... If you watch the tape, the flag is blowing with the wind...

I thought there was no wind in space? (;

[Ante]

Though we've sent things further, I think it sounds kind of impossible. I mean, in 1969? Going to the moon? I mean, why hasn't anyone else done it? Sounds kinda wierd to me.

[Sporty Fox]

Here's all the proof you need that it was a hoax.  '>

Seriously tho, for the answers about the flag waving and all the other "proof" that people have claimed shows the landing to be a hoax try here.

Think about this for a minute tho- this happened 36 years ago. There were thousands of people involved in the space program and yet not a one has come forward with any evidence of it being faked; the rumors all come from people not involved and with no first hand knowledge. If it was faked one of those people in the space program would have made thier million selling the story to the networks years ago.
We were also in the middle of the cold war and in a space race with the Soviets whose spys 'aquired' every one of our space secrets within a year of us making a discovery- if we had faked it the Soviets not only would have known but would have made sure that the rest of the world knew it too!

[Dixie Landoe]

Quote

I mean, why hasn't anyone else done it?

I could be misreading this statement, so I'll state something for both possible meanings of it.

in the past on October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 successfully, signifying an embarrassing defeat to a seemingly more powerful democratically-run United States, and also launching Luna 2, the first craft to "land" on the moon. � this, in return, manifested a blow as a product of a Communist state was able to do something better and faster than a democracy could (after the German V-2 rocket was the first to skim the edges of outer space, all of the main world powers were making developments in space technology of some sort; the biggest ones were of course the USSR and US).

in return, this defeat to be the first to land an unmanned space aircraft on the moon infuriated late President John F. Kennedy, which led to his "in ten years, an American will be put on the moon" speech and the creation of the National Air and Space Administration (NASA). � This started the meat of the space race, where each of the two world powers (after ww2, they were the only two countries with significant funding for a successful space program) rapidly worked to outcompete the other. � this led to incredible advancements in aeronautical technology, countless missions, some failing but many succeeding (and billions of tax dollars being spent for a good cause) on both sides, and eventually, the American Apollo 11 allowed US astronauts John Glenn, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins (stayed in lander) to be the first men to land/walk on the moon (though many flights were made by Soviets with dogs in them before - poor wittle Laika and company... ). � personally, I believe that this mission signified that it was in fact possible for man to produce a craft capable of reaching the moon, so any further missions were deemed pointless, since there are many other things that most nations deemed as more pressing and important.

therefore I can conclude that there was in fact somebody else who has landed on the moon before us, albeit unmanned (USSR), but we were the first to put men there, and the reason nobody else has made any further attempts is because, since it had already been proven doable, it was seen as pointless to those who found other issues needing to be solved.

and yes, I believe that with everything that had happened beforehand, and all the previous missions we had done with manned spacecraft, it was in fact not staged, and with the amount of advancements that were brought forth through that time period that it was in fact possible.

Quote

I don't think so... If you watch the tape, the flag is blowing with the wind...

I do believe there are two factors that may have caused the flag to flicker somewhat in the film: � 1. � the moon is always orbiting the earth in a circular motion, at the same time rotating around its axis. � the speed at which the moon is moving and rotating would cause the lighter material in the flag itself to move about, flowing with teh movement of the moon itself, and 2. � well, I have a quote from here for you first.

Quote

Atmosphere: almost nonexistent (up to 200,000 molecules/cubic cm), mostly hydrogen, helium, neon, and argon

even though space is a vacuum, there are SOME molecules still out there. � this is what would cause a bullet, if fired in space, to eventually slow down over time, rather than maintain a fixed speed for all eternity. � these molecules collide with the molecules that make up the fibers of the flag, and given the slightly greater density of elements within the gravitational pull of the moon, do so in a sufficient quantity as to affect the course and movement the flag itself takes while standing. � given the two aforementioned reasons, it would be impossible for anything on any large mass of solid, moving material (as gravity is dependant on the size of the objects in question) to remain in a fixed position for eternity. � '>

EDIT: � (and yes, I did a small amount of research to verify my facts and give reasoning to my statements.) � '>

EDIT2:  I have just been notified that I was slightly wrong.  the US went to the moon six times, with the priority in the last five being to collect samples and photographs of the lunar surface.  I personally believe that the reason no other country bothered with it after that, is that they probably only wanted to get there for the glory, and since victory'd already been achieved by the US, they decided to cease using their money on a project that had already been accomplished.

[Sskessa]

Quote

Somehow, NASA just doesn't strike me as one to pull a "Let's not and say we did!" on the world.

That's about how I feel as well.

*sigh* I wish there was more money going into NASA...I want to see some aliens...

[Sporty Fox]

Another question for those who think we faked it; does that mean we faked the other five landings also?
Apollo 11: July 1969
Apollo 12: November 1969
Apollo 14: Feb 1971
Apollo 15: July 1971
Apollo 16: April 1972
Apollo 17: Dec 1972
 
For a complete overview of each mission and the list of members, logs from the mission, etc you can go to the
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

[Kobuk]

Ante:  Actually, there were others who sent stuff to the moon: the Soviets. They sent probes and unmanned landers to the moon long before the US sent it's first astronauts there. The Soviets may have been the first to the moon with unmanned probes and such, but WE were first to the moon by sending manned missions there.
Here's some links:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunarussr.html
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Index.htm

And here's some other significant info. about the Soviet unmanned/manned lunar programs:
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/sovhist.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/lindroos_moon1.htm

Also, if you're lucky enough to find it, which I am cause I've got a copy at home, check your local library for "The Encyclopedia of Soviet Spacecraft" by Douglas Hart. The book is a bit old having been published in 1987 but it's still quite informative.

[Thurber]

I can't find the web site but there are pictures available from earth based telescopes that can resolve our landing sites on the moon.  If you wanted to you could see them yourself.  BTW thats a great link Sporty. '>

[Finnish Fox]

Quote (Taren @ July 16 2005, 8:39 pm)

I don't think so... If you watch the tape, the flag is blowing with the wind... I thought there was no wind in space? (;

its not blowing as much as it is waving. the thinness of the atmosphere allows the slightest movement from the astronaut to make it wave.

the reasons no one else has gone to the moon is because 1) its ridiculously expensive. 2) its super risky, Russia lost 3 unmanned N-1 moon rockets in tests (the amount of staff that was killed in the resulting explosions was also staggering). 3) no one has a cause to go to the moon. back then it was to show that we could launch a missile farther.

for closing. how did we get the tons and tons of moon rocks. many of the rocks found on the moon are formed only in low atmosphere low gravity conditions. true some parts of the moon are blasted of in meteor impacts, but only an infinitesimally small amount land on earth. and even fewer are found. its simply not enough to account for all the moon rocks gathered from the Apollo missions.

[Jpsousa]

For the flag waving conspiracy: Waving flag on the moon

Heres some "proof" we never landed on the moon:
Faked moon landings!

and Heres the Critique of the website:
non-Faked moon landings!

[Arbutus]

Quote (Finnish Fox @ July 16 2005, 11:30 pm)

Quote (Taren @ July 16 2005, 8:39 pm) I don't think so... If you watch the tape, the flag is blowing with the wind... I thought there was no wind in space? (; its not blowing as much as it is waving. the thinness of the atmosphere allows the slightest movement from the astronaut to make it wave.

Yeah, basically... the flag itself was constructed with a stiff wire along the top edge (because otherwise it would have just hung limply against the flagpole, and that's so0o0o uninspiring '>). And I think the wire ended in a loop that wrapped around the top of the flagpole in a small channel, if i remember right, so any vibrations coming up from the ground (f. ex. astronauts' footsteps, rovers, giant honking spacecraft thrusters) would have started it trembling.

[Jpsousa]

Quote (Sskessa @ July 16 2005, 8:05 pm)

Quote Somehow, NASA just doesn't strike me as one to pull a "Let's not and say we did!" on the world. That's about how I feel as well. *sigh* I wish there was more money going into NASA...I want to see some aliens...

(this is all assuming that we have an engine that can do this...)
This is actuly- very possible.

if we find a planet with life on it (i estimate within the next 200 years...possibly...maybe even in our life time!'> that is, say...10 light years away, We get get there in 5 years. (though it would take 15 earth years to pass)

The astronauts would return 20 years younger then the rest of us on earth...Why?

well if we could get the engine rigged to accelerate Xnumber of G's untill we got to the planet, time would flow slower for the astronauts...it would take them 5 years to get there. But on earth it seems like 15 years.

then when you come back, just double everything.

Of course we would probly go through a nueclear holocost before anybody can develop an engine that can do that... =\

[Ulario]

Not sure.  But to be honest, if we didn't it really wouldn't surprise me.  Anything to beat the Russians, because heavan forbid they make us Americans look bad by getting there first.

[Scani]

I pretty much accept it as fact. I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, in all seriousness.

Though I do like the REM song! '>

[RavenWolf]

I think we did but I can't back it up