Vec: I'm copying so this doesn't get taken over by this moon silliness.
What I'm having a hard time believing is NASA's first man on the moon story.
If they are having problems in this time and age putting people in space, how could they have possibly got people on the moon and back.
Doesn't it strike any of you how ironic the moon landing was? How many others landed on the moon after that? did the Russians? did anyone at all? can anyone even see the flag? are they even trying to land people on the moon today?
No, because it is impossible. They do not have the technology or even the money for such a project.
I believe NASA's whole space tales are entirely ridicules.
Mel, do you seriously think that NASA would have the time, patience, and resources to be able to fake six moon landings and cover them all up for nearly four decades for no good reason?
Not to mention the fact that she's implying we can construct and maintain a free-standing Space Station that people live and work in but it's apparently impossible to land a module on the moon and walk around for a bit, which is ridiculous in and of itself.
Quote:
Mel, do you seriously think that NASA would have the time, patience, and resources to be able to fake six moon landings and cover them all up for nearly four decades for no good reason?
Rivalry, at that time Russian technology was more advanced, Russia reached the space and the US president promised the American people they will reach the moon for the sake of argument let's say he was a psychic <I'm being sarcastic>
for a shuttle to perfectly land on the moon is a joke, the dynamics of the landing, the measures of the moon and gravity pull was all flawed. perfectly expected at that time.
there was no possible way for the pod of that ridicules cardboard size to fight enormous moon gravity. And the camera view?! How is that ever possible? Perfect shots! The American flag! It was all a stage.
Many people know it's fake, our thinking today isn't as simple to trick as back then. yet, I'm sorry the gullible dreams and hopes of some are a lie. That is NASA's biggest crime, raising the hopes of dreamers.
Quote:
Not to mention the fact that she's implying we can construct and maintain a free-standing Space Station that people live and work in
what are you talking about, I said nothing of the sort.
I disbelieved the core, by that I eliminated the rest of NASA's cinematic lies.
Quote:
enormous moon gravity
The moon is the largest of the 17 planets in our solar system, out-sizing Jupiter and even Pluto.
Yeah. I remember reading on such conspiracy theories. It sounds plausible, and I often really wonder if the government is going all Big Brother on us. Maybe I need to take over the world soon... o.
The point is, all conspiracy aside, going to space is almost pointless. I can understand researching in labs and such, and certainly man-made satellites, but spending a couple million dollars, probably more, as I have no idea an estimate, is never worth a quick view of Mars. Especially with the world in as bad a shape as it is right now.
~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper
Why in God's name should Mel's crazy moon-landing conspiracy theories get their own thread?
Because we apparently don't want them clogging up your thread and reading them cheers me up when I'm sad.
So far Vec has split a topic into two since the subject was changing- which is part of his job here, Cycle has lightly criticized you, and I revealed some secrets about what cheers me up.
If you want to talk about unsupported claims and the like, I'd turn you towards your humungous Moon gravity and belittling nature towards "teenagers" (read: everyone else).
Hurry Mel, go put on your tinfoil hat before the evil government overlords find out you've circumvented their moon landing brainwashing!
Quote:
there was no possible way for the pod of that ridicules cardboard size to fight enormous moon gravity.
If you don't even know how the moon works, maybe you shouldn't be debating about it.
Quote:
If you don't even know how the moon works, maybe you shouldn't be debating about it.
just because someone picked a remark on one word, doesn't mean you take him seriously. the moon's gravity is enormous on the pod. For it to launch from the moon and return to the earth is highly questionable.
the false moon landing is widely discussed, it is not a new topic or an unreasonable one. You can give emphasis to why you disagree, but please use discussion worth arguments.
Oh God.
Mel, I'm serious: Learn how the moon works. Its gravity is about 1/5 as strong as Earth's is, so ships could easily launch off it. Why else would it be orbiting Earth?
Sorry mel, but Deck is right. The moon has minimal gravity. Also if it had greater gravity than the eartth, it would, in theory, pull towards the earth and smash it Why do you think people bounce around on the moon?. As fro a cover up, I guess its possible, but I kinda doubt it. That would take soem icnreible tiem and resources, resources that it's possible didnt exist at the time.
Elvis LIVES!!!!!
Quote:
Why in God's name should Mel's crazy moon-landing conspiracy theories get their own thread?
Why did everyone make a big deal about a fuzzy Bigfoot photo? /redundant
Quote:
You can give emphasis to why you disagree, but please use discussion worth arguments.
Seriously, if you're going to have a crackpot conspiracy theory, you might want to actually show some supporting evidence/arguements in your favor. Then we could pretend that your arguements held some weight and weren't actually just a bunch of straw men.
The USA faked the moon landings because they wanted to beat the Russians!
You know that thread above you? You know, where all the text and relevance happens to lie? Yeah, read it first.
Also, if the moon landings were faked, why haven't the Russians come out and blown the BS whistle? What, they got bought off? Yeah, back in the 60s. This is the 00s, where 'confidential Russian intelligence' is a punchline to many jokes told in Russian bars. If we'd bought them off back then, the evidence would've surfaced by now, prolly given as a bonus item to whoever's buying 'lost' nuclear warheads in bulk from them.
I can prove it wasn't a hoax. The first Nasa moon equipment was made for miles and miles of dust that was supposed to have gathered on the moon in millions of years. When they got to the moon there was only a few inches of dust. If it was faked, there would have been miles and miles of dust, like Nasa thought. that is my two cents 
Quote:
The moon has minimal gravity. Also if it had greater gravity than the eartth, it would, in theory, pull towards the earth and smash it
Yes that's all known and all, however the moon's gravity is not to be taking so lightly, the moon's gravity pull has effect on earth, it causes the tides on the sea surface. if the moon's gravity is strong enough to make an effect on the earth's waters all the way from outer space, it's gravity on the moon lander will be larger because it's on it's surface.
let's take it from the gravity scale once more. the moon's gravity represents one sixth of the earth's gravity, correct? Well that means the amount of boost power needed to launch the moon Lander from the moon is one sixth of the Apollo shuttle's booster control that was needed to launch it from earth.
The moon Lander is smaller and less powerful than what is needed to make the launch, the moon's gravity is too big for a pod that size. To the shuttle it is an enormous gravity pull to overcome.
Quote:
The USA faked the moon landings because they wanted to beat the Russians!
So you agree with me?
Quote:
The first Nasa moon equipment was made for miles and miles of dust that was supposed to have gathered on the moon in millions of years. When they got to the moon there was only a few inches of dust. If it was faked, there would have been miles and miles of dust, like Nasa thought. that is my two cents
actually because it's faked it's a lot easier to make it inches of dust.
Quote:
you might want to actually show some supporting evidence/arguements in your favor.
I have made a good argument if you had cared to respond to, I will list them again in hopes you choose to discus them not pass through them.
1- the moon's gravity pull and lunar pod <as explained>
2- the flag, it can not be seen on the moons surface and knowing the pod could have only landed on the reflecting face of the moon, it should have been visible to us.
3- the footage, it's perfection on the moon is too convenient, in modern today we have problems with audio and visual footages from space.
4- no attempts to land on the moon were ever made again and by no one other than NASA.
5- technology, If they have such safe technology back then, it wouldn't be hard for them to arrange moon tours now.
6- Cinematic side of the story, the visionary promise, the perfect mission and the poetic lines <not to mention the calm unexcited voice of the astronaut> all were too theatrical.
Quote:
Yes that's all known and all, however the moon's gravity is not to be taking so lightly, the moon's gravity pull has effect on earth, it causes the tides on the sea surface. if the moon's gravity is strong enough to make an effect on the earth's waters all the way from outer space, it's gravity on the moon lander will be larger because it's on it's surface.
Dude, the best the moon can do is make ripples in its captures water, we stand on the Earth, the Earth's gravity can pull the whole freaking moon with its gravitational pull from space. Are you forgetting we cope with much stronger gravity on Earth daily?
Quote:
1- the moon's gravity pull and lunar pod <as explained>
It's not just gravity that the rockets are escaping on Earth. It's the atmosphere. Air does have weight, you know. The weight and particles in the air and gases all cause friction, which hinders forward momentum. But the moon has no atmosphere. No air. No friction. Only a slight gravity. Far easier to escape.
Quote:
2- the flag, it can not be seen on the moons surface and knowing the pod could have only landed on the reflecting face of the moon, it should have been visible to us.
You ever try looking at something 10 feet away close with high-powered binoculars? It'd be impossible to focus, because it wasn't made to look at something that close. Suppose they turn the Hubble toward the moon to find the flag. They wouldn't find it, and it's not because it's not there, but because the Hubble is made to look at things light years away, not within eight days.
Quote:
3- the footage, it's perfection on the moon is too convenient, in modern today we have problems with audio and visual footages from space.
And how much audio and visual footage from space have you actually watched?
Quote:
4- no attempts to land on the moon were ever made again and by no one other than NASA.
You can only go somewhere uninteresting so many times before you go "Eh, why bother?" Let's face it: our moon sucks. It's uninteresting and boring. It'd have been much cooler to have Io or Callisto as our moon.
Quote:
5- technology, If they have such safe technology back then, it wouldn't be hard for them to arrange moon tours now.
Why don't you ask the Apollo 1 and 13 crews how "safe" it was? While you're at it, ask the Challenger and Columbia crews as well.
Quote:
6- Cinematic side of the story, the visionary promise, the perfect mission and the poetic lines <not to mention the calm unexcited voice of the astronaut> all were too theatrical.
Sometimes things just go right. As for the poetic lines, you don't think Niel Armstrong sat down for the trip there and tried to think up what his first words would be setting foot on something that nobody had set foot on before? I bet he had entire pads of paper filled with potential things to say. As for his tone, he's a professional and he knew he was being broadcast all over the world. He wasn't going to go "HOLY BALLS I'M ON THE FRIGGIN MOON HA HA HA LEMME GIVE A SHOUT-OUT TO MY PEEPS IN NASA". He was going to give the sound-bite that NASA wanted.
Your problem is that your arguements all consist of making up straw men to knock down. It's bad debate form. Also, the ad-hominum attacks don't help your side of the arguement a single iota.
2- the flag, it can not be seen on the moons surface and knowing the pod could have only landed on the reflecting face of the moon, it should have been visible to us.
When I squint, I can't see the flag on the moon!
4- no attempts to land on the moon were ever made again and by no one other than NASA.
Out of the 0 future attempts to land on the Moon, they were all made by NASA!
5- technology, If they have such safe technology back then, it wouldn't be hard for them to arrange moon tours now.
Since there have never been any space accidents, it's only suspicious there's no Moon Elevator!
6- Cinematic side of the story, the visionary promise, the perfect mission and the poetic lines all were too theatrical.
It seemed fake so it must be!
I wish smarter people didn't post before me, I work alot better that way.
We have to landed on the moon. It says so right here in my adam and eve intelligent design science book. 😮
~Rico
He wasn't going to go "HOLY BALLS I'M ON THE FRIGGIN MOON HA HA HA LEMME GIVE A SHOUT-OUT TO MY PEEPS IN NASA"
Oh Christ, you just gave me a horrible idea for a black-guy-summer-movie.
"Luna Brutha", starring Marlon Wayans as Jamal Smith, the first black man on the moon. When he lands he'll shout "mad propz yo" to his "homies on da eastside" and launch into a low-gravity breakdancing routine, while his whitebread shipmates look on, shaking their heads in awkward disbelief. The teen-trash crowd will love it. Much "ohhh snap dawg!" and finger-flicking will ensue. No wha'am sain?
MLK in da hizzie yo!
Quote:
3- the footage, it's perfection on the moon is too convenient, in modern today we have problems with audio and visual footages from space.
You have heard of satellites right? Please name ANY example of having media problems in space.
Quote:
4- no attempts to land on the moon were ever made again and by no one other than NASA.
This is complete nonsense.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17
There have been 6 Apollo moon landing missions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moo...f_the_Moon
From the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, there were 65 moon landings (with 10 in 1971 alone)
These missions bring back SAMPLES, not just data.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Exploration
Dozens of spacecraft, including orbiters, landers, and rovers, have been sent to Mars by the Soviet Union, the United States, Europe, and Japan to study the planet's surface, climate, and areography.
If they can land on Mars, why not the moon? Were the many photos, videos, and other data from Mars also fake?
Quote:
5- technology, If they have such safe technology back then, it wouldn't be hard for them to arrange moon tours now.
EXPENSIVE. Only recently is the private sector flying into space.
Yes that's all known and all, however the moon's gravity is not to be taking so lightly, the moon's gravity pull has effect on earth, it causes the tides on the sea surface. if the moon's gravity is strong enough to make an effect on the earth's waters all the way from outer space, it's gravity on the moon lander will be larger because it's on it's surface.
let's take it from the gravity scale once more. the moon's gravity represents one sixth of the earth's gravity, correct? Well that means the amount of boost power needed to launch the moon Lander from the moon is one sixth of the Apollo shuttle's booster control that was needed to launch it from earth.
The moon Lander is smaller and less powerful than what is needed to make the launch, the moon's gravity is too big for a pod that size. To the shuttle it is an enormous gravity pull to overcome.
This is for me on this moon nonsense. Robobotnik hit the nail on the head. And to end it if the moon had greater gravity, wouldn't the Earth circle around it rather than how it is now?
Now for the topic.
Dozens of spacecraft, including orbiters, landers, and rovers, have been sent to Mars by the Soviet Union, the United States, Europe, and Japan to study the planet's surface, climate, and areography.
If they can land on Mars, why not the moon? Were the many photos, videos, and other data from Mars also fake?
This is why I think people who think the moon landings were fake are out of their minds. They never mention mars.
5- technology, If they have such safe technology back then, it wouldn't be hard for them to arrange moon tours now.
Not only expense as its been said, but the fact it wasn't safer then.
4- no attempts to land on the moon were ever made again and by no one other than NASA.
There have been so many moon landings its not funny.
3- the footage, it's perfection on the moon is too convenient, in modern today we have problems with audio and visual footages from space.
Bull. Why do you think we have such clear images or the Earth, Sun, and other planets and heavenly bodies (I know what you pervs are thinknig ><)
2- the flag, it can not be seen on the moons surface and knowing the pod could have only landed on the reflecting face of the moon, it should have been visible to us.
I agree with CastorTroy on this one.
P.S.: Now why did I do them out of order? No one knows. And pardon spellnig errors.
"flying into space" is relative. The private sector won't be landing people on the moon for a long, <i>long</i> time. As for right nwo if you pay a million or so you can be launched really high (100k) and esperience weightlessness for a few minutes. That's hardly spaceflight as NASA would describe it.
As for NASA not ever having been on the moon, ask government banks. And what is this about it's fake because we have problems now? I have two points on this.
A. We're simply being careful. If we don't want to launch in bad weather, then we won't launch in bad weather. We're patient enough to wait for a clear day. There's lots of those in Florida.
2. The Space Shuttle fleet is badly aging. They're already past twice their expected lifespan. So caution is needed now more than ever. If you disagree, ask Columbia's crew's family.
III. "enormous moon gravity" I don't really have a point on this, I jsut love Wonderbat's new sig.
Four. We didn't stp because we couldn't keep faking it. We stopped going to the moon because there was no reason to keep going. Yes, we proved our point. Yes, we shoved it back at the Soviets. Yes, we had a lot more moon missions. But after a while, what's the point? Been there, done that, yeah?
Also, one last point. I don't think the US Government would be so stupid with money to piss away that many billions of dollars just to try to fake out the Soviet Union on something like this.
Quote:
I don't think the US Government would be so stupid with money to piss away that many billions of dollars
*waves hand jedi style* Iraq IS hiding WMD on the moon.
~Rico'Ki the Jedi Guy
Tus do you have a point or are you jsut being you.
You forgot the rest of the sentence Rico. That's why I put it like that. D:
Nice comments Cyc. Really thoughtful ones there.
Initially all I saw was Rico's quote, so I decided to be mean. But then I looked up at your post and saw what you had said in context and it was a bit of a stretch to say "Jesus, you're dumb" so I changed my mind.
Ah, I see. All I saw was a no-message message.
It works with the whole sentence. But its funnier without it.
~Nerd
