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

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

O, why not saitsfy yourself that several hunks of junk are lunar landers and other crap left on the surface.

Why not? Because Mark's game would be over if he did, and he has way too much fun playing it.

@Thomas,

Yup. Based on his other threads, he's interested in questioning "certainty", not on debating the merits of scientific reasoning.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

I agree, yet its not too much to periodically review "Why we know something as an absolute". SCience is often so remote from us all that we merely parrot stuff from websites and havent repeated anything that led to the conclusions we accept.

i HAVE NOT REPEATED THE GEOCHRONOLOGY OF THE MOON ROCK ZIRCONS. I do howevere accept the dataand analyses as correct. (The nature and repeated data from prep to analyses are all avaliable on the deep portions of the web)

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I take an engineering view on life that unless there is very solid reasons to looking into accepted facts it is largely a waste of time to do so in a random way.

I given credit that there was a Roman Empire without feeling any need to do deep deep research on the subject to prove it beyond question myself.

Other then once talking to a lady who was in one of the Nazis death camps I had taken the words of the culture that I am in that there was a holocaust that kill millions in the 30s and the 40s.

Other then watching the takeoff of two of the moonships with my own eyes I had cheerfully taken the words of the tens of thousands of people directly involved in the project back by the logic that for this to had been fake would had taken millions of times the efforts that going there did that we landed on the moon.

A few nuts on the internet that claimed that the holocaust did not occur or the world trade center was taken down by way of being wired ahead of time with explosives or we did not go to the moon is hardly enough to call any of those happenings into question.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Yes, but you're not a philosopher, are you?

Mark thinks he's thinking deep thoughts (I think). He's not going about it very well, though, and he comes off as seeming shallow and/or gullible.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I do not believe man ever set foot on the moon, no.

For someone with your moniker, you're strangely reluctant to apply Ockham's Razor to this question.

Says you. When I dial my knowledge bank back to the mid sixties, I find the proposition of fooling people into thinking we went to the moon far simpler than actually doing it. Ya'll ever seen a magic trick? If you don't know how it was faked; do you assume dude really made a rabbit materialize out of thin air?

The Ad Populum Orgy going on here is comedic. The degree of confidence being shown is not supported by the quality of evidence. DrewDad thinks the evidence of the moon landing is on par with the Wright Brother's first flight. Laughing

Truth is, not one contributor here KNOWS for sure one way or another. Intelligent people recognize there’s room for disagreement as to just how compelling the evidence is.

Meanwhile; no one has even attempted to explain why the dust beneath the lunar landing module shows no sign of disturbance, despite there being an abundance of it for making famous foot prints. No one has tried to answer why thousands of pounds of rocket thrust will blow flags over, but won't blow dust.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

DrewDad thinks the evidence of the moon landing is on par with the Wright Brother's first flight.

Actually, I've seen archival footage of the moon landing. No such thing exists for Orville's first flight.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill, if you're not interested in running your own experiment in laser physics, you could just read up on the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment. I suggest you start with the sources in Wikipedia's article on the subject. I don't really trust WIkipedia itself, though this page happens to be a fairly good summary.

A quick read of that page tells me that experiment pre-dates the alleged moon landings, and also that the Soviets managed to drop a reflector from an unmanned mission. So why couldn't we?

More compelling to me on that page was this picture:

Raise your hand if you can explain why the surface of the moon shows no sign that a rocket engine was used to deposit that landing module.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
DrewDad thinks the evidence of the moon landing is on par with the Wright Brother's first flight.

Actually, I've seen archival footage of the moon landing. No such thing exists for Orville's first flight.

I've seen footage of Superman circling the globe at ludicrous pace.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Yes, but you're not a philosopher, are you?

Mark thinks he's thinking deep thoughts (I think). He's not going about it very well, though, and he comes off as seeming shallow and/or gullible.

You wrote this to Billrm, about Mark Noble? Really? Laughing

This should clear up any remaining question about whether or not you're an ankle biting little dick.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

thinks the evidence of the moon landing is on par with the Wright Brother's first flight. Truth is, not one contributor here KNOWS for sure one way or another. Intelligent people recognize there’s room for disagreement as to just how compelling the evidence is.

My lord we have one picture and a few witnesses and their personal notes and little else on the Wright brothers first flight not the overwhelming ocean of evidences that the moon flight program generated along with a few hundred pounds of moon rocks.

You got to be kidding me and the rest of us concerning you questioning one of the most documented event in the history of the world.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Occom Bill wrote:

A quick read of that page tells me that experiment pre-dates the alleged moon landings,

Perhaps you should take a little more time to get your reading right. The experiment doesn't pre-date the moon-landings; it has just been invented before the moon landings. (Duh!)

Occom Bill" wrote:

and also that the Soviets managed to drop a reflector from an unmanned mission. So why couldn't we?

That wasn't Mark's hypothesis. His was that Apollo 11 left Earth, flew waiting loops in a 500-mile Earth orbit, and then came back. The Russians didn't drop their reflectors from a 500-mile Earth orbit---and neither did the US.

Occom Bill wrote:

Raise your hand if you can explain why the surface of the moon shows no sign that a rocket engine was used to deposit that landing module.

What is there to explain? What specific signs were you expecting?

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Who are you calling "an ankle biting little dick" you ankle-biting, little dick?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

OB is suffering from the same delusion as Mark. A lunar geologist Noah Petro (Im sure this is a "qwebby" name) has assembled a bunch of photos of the Lunar Missions and hes got a few that are blowups of some 40 year old shots of the various landing areas. In the last one you can actually see the shadow cast by the Lunar Module base.
AS far as "not seeing any dust"Theres plenty of evidence from the old HAsselblad shots to show the dust trails left on the surface. You can see the disturbance in the last photo pretty well. Im sure the laterphotos are even better.

What Im seeing is that, counter to Mark abnd OB's obsession, the evidence actually shows that the moon missions took place in as boring a detail as we need to see.
If some people dont buy it, thats not an example of being "a scientific skeptic" Its getting a tad bit over the top.

I put this in the same bag o **** as the "911 scholars for Truth" crap. SOmetimes ya just cant carry on a decent conversation and compare facts igf the minds of the "Moon hoaxers" are totally closed to facts and evidence.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
A quick read of that page tells me that experiment pre-dates the alleged moon landings,

Perhaps you should take a little more time to get your reading right. The experiment doesn't pre-date the moon-landings; it has just been invented before the moon landings. (Duh!)

Got me.

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill" wrote:
and also that the Soviets managed to drop a reflector from an unmanned mission. So why couldn't we?

That wasn't Mark's hypothesis. His was that Apollo 11 left Earth, flew waiting loops in a 500-mile Earth orbit, and then came back. The Russians didn't drop their reflectors from a 500-mile Earth orbit---and neither did the US.

I'm not Mark. Answer the question. If the Soviets could put the reflector down in an unmanned flight; why do you think we couldn't?

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
Raise your hand if you can explain why the surface of the moon shows no sign that a rocket engine was used to deposit that landing module.

What is there to explain? What specific signs were you expecting?

Look at the picture, Th0mas. Why can't we see where the dust was disturbed by thousands of pounds of rocket thrust?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Who are you calling "an ankle biting little dick" you ankle-biting, little dick?

Brilliant!

0 Replies

My mother never believed man set foot on the moon.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

My mother used to screw all the covers back on the outside sockets so the "juice" wouldnt run out.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Answer the question. If the Soviets could put the reflector down in an unmanned flight; why do you think we couldn't?

I'm not saying it's categorically impossible. I'm saying it's a pretty good piece of evidence that Apollo 11 was no fake---one among many. Considering the whole body of evidence, it would have been harder for NASA to fake the Moon landing while producing the evidence than to just land the damn thing on the moon.

Occom Bill wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Occom Bill wrote:
Raise your hand if you can explain why the surface of the moon shows no sign that a rocket engine was used to deposit that landing module.

What is there to explain? What specific signs were you expecting?

Look at the picture, Th0mas. Why can't we see where the dust was disturbed by thousands of pounds of rocket thrust?

Because there is no air on the moon, which leads to two effects:

The Lunar Landing Module's rocket exhaust only hits the dust immediately below itself. On Earth, it would have stirred up a lot of air around it, and the air, in turn, would have stirred up a lot of dust outside the LLM's immediate perimeter. But not on the moon.
Because there's no air on the moon to carry dust around, what little dust does get hit below the LLM doesn't get carried any significant distance. If they move at all, those dust grains fly their little parables, just like a grain of sand or a pebble would on Earth.

The cumulative effect of both points is that you don't expect any signs of the LLM's exhaust where the reflector is on that picture. For the most part, then, what you call "signs" that a rocket engine was used" really are signs that there's air on the moon. And there isn't.

1 Reply

First I wonder if Mark and Occom Bill ever worry about looking like fools to the future researches of this time period given that it is more then likely that those researchers had visited the moon landing sites on their vacations.

In any case, I find it highly amusing that Occom Bill is more then willing to give credit to the Wright Bothers 1903 flyer flight but not to the moon landings.

Not only is the evidence one hell of a lot less but when very careful reproductions of the 1903 flyer was created to reenacted the flight for the 100 year anniversary no one could get a flight out of them to match Wilbur one.

This was with them carefully picking the pilots and creating a computer driven flight simulator for them to train on for months.

It was found that the craft was highly unstable in pitch just to start with.

No, I do not think that the Wright Brothers first flight was a fake but there is more reason to question it then to question the moon landings.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know