darthfoley
Active member
Aliens on the dark side that told us to go home and not come back. 
Believe there were moon landings?
- Thread starter Einion
- Start date
No Such Agency
New member
Are you sure you\'re not thinking of media dramatizations? I\'m not sure which \"flyby\" shots you are talking about. There are shots from one craft to another, as below:
That\'s basically the guy in the command module pointing a camera out the window after the CM/LEM rendezvous, as the LEM heads to the lunar surface. I don\'t think NASA would have passed off FX footage as the real thing.
Sand Rat
New member
Cameras on the exterior of the Command Modules and the LEM provided the shots of the exterior of the units in space. Unfortunately they were not in the right place to look at the damage on Apollo 13\'s Service Module - and they had a real good idea of what had happened to the Service Module shortly after it happened (ie a O2 tank had ruptured) what took so long to figure out was 1. how to keep the crew alive with components from two different systems built by completely different subcontractors, and 2. how to get the crew back down safely - which was a big issue because they did not know if the Service Module had caused the heat shield on the Command Module to come loose.
Having said that, the one thing I have never seen any of the \"We\'ve never been to the moon/It was all staged\" loons discuss or even look at are the 200+ pounds of Lunar Rock and Soil that were brought back by the Apollo program.
BarstoolProphet
New member
I\'ve never really made up my mind what I think about it. What makes me most suspicious is the \'first steps on the moon\' footage.
If those were really the first steps on the moon, who set up the camera and adjusted the focus so accurately?
And aimed it?
And why do those mountains and rocky hills in the background of the pictures so thoroughly resemble ones in the USA? There are documentaries to prove both sides.
I remain undecided. Also, I don\'t really care. If we ever go back, then I\'ll probably develop a great deal of interest in it.
If those were really the first steps on the moon, who set up the camera and adjusted the focus so accurately?
And aimed it?
And why do those mountains and rocky hills in the background of the pictures so thoroughly resemble ones in the USA? There are documentaries to prove both sides.
I remain undecided. Also, I don\'t really care. If we ever go back, then I\'ll probably develop a great deal of interest in it.
You skeptics can\'t possibly be serious.
Imagine if CMON went off line tomorrow and people a few years from now said, \"You know, I don\'t think there ever was a CMON. I think the Government staged the whole thing.\" You would think they\'re pretty much insane, wouldn\'t you? That\'s how you look to everyone else. :bouncy:
Imagine if CMON went off line tomorrow and people a few years from now said, \"You know, I don\'t think there ever was a CMON. I think the Government staged the whole thing.\" You would think they\'re pretty much insane, wouldn\'t you? That\'s how you look to everyone else. :bouncy:
No Such Agency
New member
Well I would imagine Armstrong\'s disembarkation from the LEM was planned beforehand, so it wouldn\'t be that hard to have the camera already fixed on a boom or landing leg
Jazz is for losers
New member
I am one of the doubters (of the original moon landing). I was the first to pick the \"fake\" option in the poll but I didn\'t have time to reply in the thread.
I don\'t believe any of the other famous conspiracy theories (JFK, 911 etc etc), but I was convinced by the well known documentary about Apollo being a fake. I have seen some stuff refuting this, but I didn\'t find it nearly as convincing (which is not the same as actual research, of course).
I don\'t believe any of the other famous conspiracy theories (JFK, 911 etc etc), but I was convinced by the well known documentary about Apollo being a fake. I have seen some stuff refuting this, but I didn\'t find it nearly as convincing (which is not the same as actual research, of course).
I want to add on to NSA\'s original post, not only would it have taken a conspiracy among all of the NASA and DoD employees, it would have also taken the Soviet Union collaborating on the hoax. And in 1969 the last people that the Soviet Union were going to collaborate with was the USA.
The Russians would have had the ability to verify the landings better than anyone, and they stopped their pursuit of the moon shortly after the Apollo 12 landings IIRC.
The Russians would have had the ability to verify the landings better than anyone, and they stopped their pursuit of the moon shortly after the Apollo 12 landings IIRC.
Trouble is Einion that you\'ve asked \"Believe there were moon landings?\"
But your mistake is that you didn\'t ask by Whom.
Watch the skies
But your mistake is that you didn\'t ask by Whom.
Watch the skies
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
I always think then when even I can refute some claims there\'s not much to the theory. Why would they include stupid arguments if the theory was honest and well thought out? Most of these conspiracy movies are more lessons in rethorics then anything else. But I most often go through a short phase where I am convinced. It\'s a thrill, it\'s like anythings possible during that short while... before I do some source criticism and look up the \"science\".
MPJ
New member
And you can prove those rocks came from the lunar surface how? I mean if we have never actually been to the moon how can we know those rocks are actual moon rocks? Do they taste like cheese? Do they light up in the night sky? Do they have a dark side?
I didn\'t think so. :drunk:
All this moon conspiracy talk is making me wonder what happened to the alien craft that crashed near Roswell, New Mexico. Seriously, where is the government hiding it?
Einion
New member
Yes, absolute proof right there (IF they bother to look at it). 841lb by the way.
The one by Fox?
Which points are convincing for you?
Shadows at different angles? Crosshairs disappearing behind objects in the photos? No stars in the photos? White objects clearly visible in deep shadow? The hills appearing to be unchanged in different photos?
lol
Serious answer? One reason is because they\'re dry. Very very dry.
As Steelcult says, really the burden of proof is on the doubters, not the other way around.
Einion
Definitely not.
If we assume that the theory of the universe being infinite is true, then we,
the moon, the earth, and all of we little people upon it are motes so tiny that we
may as well not exist. The same can be said of the moon. And, since none of
these things exist, mathematically speaking, the moon landing never
happened.
Yes, I know the arguement is severely flawed. Sue me.
If we assume that the theory of the universe being infinite is true, then we,
the moon, the earth, and all of we little people upon it are motes so tiny that we
may as well not exist. The same can be said of the moon. And, since none of
these things exist, mathematically speaking, the moon landing never
happened.
Yes, I know the arguement is severely flawed. Sue me.
MPJ
New member
Actually all I HAVE to do is stay white and die. :drunk:
The logic involved in saying that the naysayers have to prove things to be untrue opens a very large can of worms letting just about anyone espouse just about any crazy theory and putting all the burden of proof on anyone disagreeing.
Argumentatively I could say that the government has been secretly feeding us mind control drugs through our tap water and it would be your burden to prove me wrong. Or I could tell you I have a piece of the planet Krypton in my basement and you would have to believe me unless you can prove otherwise.
Even proving that a certain rock did not come from the planet earth (difficult but I\'m sure possible) does not mean it came from the moon, and I find it highly unlikely that a particular rock could be proven to come from the moon unless we had a rock known to come from the moon to compare it against.
All this being said, I am quite sure we did land on the moon and we do in fact have moon rocks. What I object to in any similar line is the automatic assumption that what we have been told and/or shown on TV must be true. It is unquestioning belief such as that which kept the world flat and at the center of the universe for so long. Questions lead to knowledge, we all know what assumptions do.
As for the theory that the universe is infinite... Well that is well understood not to be true at all. The universe is, as we all likely know, expanding. If it is expanding then it cannot be infinite. What always breaks my mind (and actually I think about it on a somewhat regular basis) is WTF is the universe expanding into? We often define space as \'nothingness\' but what kind of \'nothing\' is really out there and how can something expanding into nothing? Now that really breaks my brain.
Einion
New member
The burden of proof is on the minority (regardless of whether they\'re right or not). It\'s still their lot to prove to the majority that an unacknowledged claim is correct - same thing with the idea of plate tectonics when first posited, the age of the earth v. what was \'known\' to be true, the evolution of species over time due to natural selection v. animals springing fully-formed into being in the Eden, the expanding universe v. the steady-state theory (which I think preceded it).
Er, no.
That is a good point.
But it\'s something that can be shown inferentially in a way that anyone with an open mind will accept I think (dryness, age, surface features, didn\'t get here by falling through the atmosphere).
Then why didn\'t you say you were playing devil\'s advocate?
Are you implying that the others in the thread that supported the idea were basing their position on blind acceptance of what they\'d heard?
BTW, the world was not thought to be flat as widely as we have been taught. How about that for an automatic assumption that what we\'re told is true?
As far back as Pythagoras the Earth was suggested to be a sphere, from observations of the disappearance of features like mountains over the horizon, the apparent curvature of the horizon at sea and the shape of the shadow of the earth when cast on the moon. He was in fact wrong - it\'s not a sphere - but he was close enough! And about three centuries after this Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference (amazing accurately it turns out).
Nobody with a good understanding of cosmology would make that claim so let\'s be fair, what might have been an off-the-cuff remark should not be equated with a common acceptance of the truth of manned missions to the surface of the moon.
I think it\'s considered to be a true vacuum - nothing - rather than what we like to call \'the vacuum of space\'.
Einion
