4
   

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

 
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 06:49 pm
@engineer,
Hi engineer!

i'm not disputing whether they did or did not land on the moon in 1969. I personally don't believe they did, but I am interested in what others think.

Thank you, and have a lovely day.
Mark...
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 07:33 pm
I have seen many attempts to disprove the moon landings, but none has persuaded me. I firmly believe it happened.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 05:16 am
@mark noble,
Previous A2K moon landing threads

http://able2know.org/topic/1623-1
http://able2know.org/topic/129808-1
http://able2know.org/forum/moon_landing/
http://able2know.org/topic/1623-3
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  4  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 05:45 am
@mark noble,
Yes, and later. I saw them all, as well as the practice flights Apollo 7 and 8. They didn't just hop into a spaceship one day and go. There were years of preparations, and they employed radio tracking stations accross the globe. Only someone who wasn't born when it happened or was but paid no attention would ask the question. I guess they must have faked projects Mercury and Gemini which gradually built to Apollo too. Stupid.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 06:06 am
@Brandon9000,
A lot of this is exactly the point about accepting and using any scientific data that derived from a program in which any given individual had NOT taken part. Imagine the secrecy that such a fake program would require. We cant keep a secret for anything, yet this program, if faked, had achieved what no other had up to that point.

I like the little laser reflectors and their coordinates. Its hard to get these things set just right and maintain a coordinate system without having been there. You just couldnt drop them from a satellite and then search for several years until you even caught a glimpse of one .
The Russians deployed Lunakhoyd I and II in the early 1970's (following our Apollo 12). It took several yers to even find em . It actually took the Cal Davis and Livermore teams to locate the damn things by ultra resolution photography.(so Ive heard). Then they shot the pulsed laser until they got a return signal that matched the 2.5 second traverse time for (c) to get to the target and back
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 07:18 am
@farmerman,
Hi farmerman!

How are you?

I have no doubt that the man has landed on the moon, just not in 69, that's all.

Have a great day, Sir.
mark...
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 08:10 am
@mark noble,
Then when do you think they did it?
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 08:17 am
@mysteryman,
Probably made a good way station when they were transporting all of the water from Mars. Sure made things messy for Noah, though.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 01:26 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Then when do you think they did it?
I'm curious to know that too. It would be a great story if the first moon landing was a hoax. It would be more dramatic if no human ever has walked on the moon.

I'm with those who have a hard time imagining that such a hoax could have gone this long without somebody coming forward. Check out information about the CIA's attempts to murder Castro. It seems that would have been more important to keep that secret that a hoaxy moon landing.

In other words, I'd need at least a working scenario for how it was pulled off and kept secret. I know human nature better than I know how to analyze a photo. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 09:57 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
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.
Laughing What kind of a damn fool would accept such an obviously silly false dilemma? I can find an expert, with an impressive CV to testify to just about anything, and another who'll be happy to oppose him after swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The experts insisted the world was flat. The experts proved the 4 minute mile impossible. The experts told the Wright brothers that humans couldn't fly. The experts thought prescribing thalidomide to pregnant women was a good idea. Experts said smoking cigarettes was good for you. Government experts said marijuana had no legitimate medicinal purposes.

Blindly accepting that experts necessarily tell the truth is a sure sign of foolishness. Researchers, scientists and ordinary Joes alike all routinely question what they are told by experts, and with good reason. Only DrewDad thinks this makes them Solipsist nuts who doubt even the input of their senses. Most rational people would willingly concede a healthy skepticism of what government experts have to say is a sound defense mechanism against The Big Lie.





BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 10:31 am
@mark noble,
Well the good old Myth Buster Show have a laser light reflected off a laser reflector on the moon placed there by the Apollo 16 mission for example. Love that show.

Second to fake such landings would take a must higher level of technology and skill then to go there in the first place.

Thousands of people in many countries would have to had supported faking those landing and then kept their mouths shut for forty years or so.

So in conclusion you need to be a complete nut case to support the idea that we never landed on the moon.

DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 10:40 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The experts insisted the world was flat. The experts proved the 4 minute mile impossible. The experts told the Wright brothers that humans couldn't fly. The experts thought prescribing thalidomide to pregnant women was a good idea. Experts said smoking cigarettes was good for you. Government experts said marijuana had no legitimate medicinal purposes.

All of these are examples false beliefs that were later overturned by empirical evidence.

Disbelieving the moon landing is like saying that the Wright brothers faked their first flight, or that Thalidomide babies are a hoax, or that the satellite pictures showing the curvature of the earth are all fake.

You either believe that peer-reviewed science works, or you're on your way to insanity trying to personally replicate every experiment that people claim to have performed.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 10:41 am
@BillRM,
Hi Bill!
I don't think you are a nut-case for believing everything about the original moon landing. But, if you think I am, you're absolutely right!
But not because of what I believe - Because of what I Know.

Sending organic material through the VA belt in 1969 with a spectrum based computer would have resulted in astromush.

In order to convince just one - One must convince them all.

Have a lovely day Bill! Bet you're american?

Mark...
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 10:41 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
A lot of this is exactly the point about accepting and using any scientific data that derived from a program in which any given individual had NOT taken part.

This is what I'm sayin'.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 10:50 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
Sending organic material through the VA belt in 1969 with a spectrum based computer would have resulted in astromush.


What the hell are you talking about?

That VA belt would had kill the crews or that the VA belt would had harm their computers or both?
mark noble
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 10:57 am
@BillRM,
Hi Bill!

There are more polite ways of asking questions - Being rash and impatient can make a person not want to respond - Don't you think?

I was talking about the organic element.

Have a brilliant day, my friend!
Mark...
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 11:10 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
day Bill! Bet you're american?


Not only am I an American but I watched with my own eyes, hear with my own ears and feel the ground shake from miles away not one moon rocket but two moon rockets leaving the earth.

The last launching at night was like watching a sun being born and you could have read fine print from the light it gave off.

Sorry to had fake this would had taken more funds, far more technology and rewriting human nature then just going to the moon as we did in fact go.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 11:12 am
@mark noble,
So the crews would had been kill by the VA belt?

And your facts for that is what?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 11:22 am
@mark noble,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Ionizing radiation and heat
1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.[103] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[104] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[105]
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[106] However, only twenty-seven astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[107]
2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

The film was kept in metal containers that prevented radiation from fogging the film's emulsion.[108] In addition, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes)
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:03 pm
@BillRM,
Hi Bill!

Van allen was paid off!

Kind regards!
Mark...
 

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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/26/2022 at 02:22:27