3
   

Did Man Set Foot On The Moon In The 60s, 70,s Or Ever?

 
 
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:28 am
Is there any reason to believe/not believe whether or not any of the variables in the - title to this post - are true or false.

And - Do you believe "Armstrong et al" ever set foot thereon?

Thank you, and have a lovely day!

Mark...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 30,716 • Replies: 461

 
View best answer, chosen by mark noble
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:33 am
@mark noble,
In the 1960's. No doubt about it. Smile
Have fun.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:41 am
@mark noble,
Certainly not. It was a dirty, dastardly US plot to make the Russians think the US was further ahead in space research etc so they'd spend all their rubles on space missions and not concentrate on espionage, nuclear missiles, and the like. Surely you know that?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:44 am
@Mame,
Hi Mame!

I don't wish to intervene at this point, but I do have some evidence to tend after I see the opinions herein.

Thank you for your reply, and have a brilliant day!
Mark...
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:59 am
@mark noble,
Given that there were several countries interested in us failing and that they all had telescopes and radios allowing them to watch and verify the flights, I think it is pretty clear that events happened exactly the way history records it.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:09 am
@engineer,
Hi Engineer!

Do you think it likely that a telescope of the era could track an unlit object for 240,000 miles whilst the earth rotates beyond view of said object?

Thank you, and have a terrific day.
Mark...
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:15 am
@mark noble,
While there is no telescope in existence capable of resolving the actual artifacts that have been left behind on the surface of the moon, radio technology was sufficiently advanced to be able to determine if the transmission sources were actually in the direction of the moon.

There are artifacts left on the moon's surface that can be verified to currently exist (e.g., laser reflectors).

If you posit a sufficiently large and successful attempt at falsifying the records of the moon landing, you pretty much have to posit a sufficiently large and successful attempt at falsifying all information you receive, including the Internet itself.

Thatway lies madness.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:21 am
@DrewDad,
Hi Drew!

I haven't given my opinion on the issue. Would it not be possible to send all that we know is there i.e "One laser return device" without the human element anywhere thereat?

We can launch many things at the moon - doesn't prove man's presence.

Thank you for your reply drew.
Kind regards.

Mark...
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:26 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi Engineer!

Do you think it likely that a telescope of the era could track an unlit object for 240,000 miles whilst the earth rotates beyond view of said object?

Thank you, and have a terrific day.
Mark...
There were antennas on both sides of the planet. The transmission from the craft included video.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:32 am
Man first set foot on the moon in 1902. It was recorded in this documentary:

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:34 am
There are several laser reflectors, not just one, of different sizes, left by several Apollo missions, on the moon.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:47 am
@MontereyJack,
Hi jack!

Could these not have been simply launched onto the surface (man free)?

Kind regards.

Mark...
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:58 am
some of them, but they weren't there before the landings and were there after, so there would have had to be an unmanned launching coincident in time with the manned launch, leaving from the same launch pad, since those were the only ones observed, and it's kind of hard to build a secret launch base and launch from there, and we have video of the astronauts going into the rocket that launched and people were keeping a pretty close eye on the rocket all the time, so to postulate that they were put there by unmanned rockets is beginning to strain even more credulity than that it's all a plot does (and they don't have to be turned on--they're a version of a corner reflector, which is always "on", so that excuse wouldn't work either).
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 12:07 pm
@mark noble,
I do not believe man ever set foot on the moon, no. The Lunar Landing Module is a farce at first glance. Photos of same reveal no disturbance of the moon dust beneath the Lander, despite the need for thousands of pounds of thrust to land the craft safely. Yet we know this dust is there, because of the famous footprint in same, right? We also know the thrust blows stuff around because Buzz Aldren once said the first flag was planted too close to the craft and was blown over when they left. Subsequent flags were, supposedly, planted further away from the craft. One of these facts has to be a bald faced lie. (I can't know whether or not the landing was faked; but I am quite confident that the pictures were at the very least.)

So now that we know they lied we must ask ourselves; why does every government entity (including NASA) contemplating a return to the moon predict it will take 2 decades to accomplish? Why would that be the case when half a century ago the deed was accomplished in well under a decade using less computing power than I carry in my pocket?
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 12:36 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
doesn't prove man's presence.

Nope.

You also can't prove the existence of communication satellites.

Or those funny creatures that live in ocean vents.

Or the Titanic.

What's your point?

You either accept that the experts are telling you the truth, or you live as some kind of Solipsist nut who doubts even the input of his senses.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 01:04 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Hi Bill!

That's without the van allen radiation problem, multi-directional light sources, photographs of landing site vacant of lander, crosshair complications, footage concurrrent with 1/2 spd not 1/6 speed. and a whole host of lies.

thank you Bill. Have a great day.

Mark...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 01:08 pm
Here's a lovely picture of the moon and one of the landing sites taken in 2009 by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Challenger_4x.png
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 05:45 pm
There is no doubt whatever in my mind that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 06:10 pm
@Brandon9000,
Hi Brandon!

In 1969?

Kind regards.
mark...
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 06:43 pm
@mark noble,
Yes. All you have to do is watch the rocket leave the Earth, watch it come back and track it's radio transmissions. The old Soviets who helplessly watched while their cold war adversaries went to the moon must be laughing pretty hard to see the only men to walk on the moon ridiculed by their own countrymen and their scientific accomplishments belittled by those too ignorant to understand a small fraction of what they accomplished.

There are other thread on A2K that handle this same topic including showing why all the "evidence" about a "fake" is so much garbage science. I'll try to find one of them later.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Did Man Set Foot On The Moon In The 60s, 70,s Or Ever?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/16/2018 at 07:07:34