Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
Okay, and if this flame war continues between certain members, I will close it. Remain ontopic people.Mods, can this thread be moved to chit chat?
Do you think we really landed on the moon?
- Thread starter Amigo
- Start date
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,972
- 232
I would've answered, "Not Sure", but that option was not there. Therefore, I will refrain from answering.
As a conspiracy theroist I am still out on whether we landed on the moon or not as the so-called proof is just not there yet. Also, it is something I have barely touched on, but have looked into.
All we have is fuzzy video and a government who says we did and no modern proof like pictures from the recent Japanese lunar orbiter. In fact there has been no independent proof other than what we are told, so who is being naive here? All we have is the US government's word, a few "pictures" and "video" and nothing more or modern.
Also, the cold war at the time and the threat and hysteria over the Soviets launching the first satellite could have forced the US's hand in "faking" one. I would not put it past our government. Nor would I put it past the Soviets to have faked theirs.
Also, witnessing the "landing" on TV myself I was told in school that we would have bases on the moon by the year 2000 as it was very important for us to do so. To date it has not happened and we have not been back since the early 70's. Why? To spend untold millions for a few rocks seems assinine to me and I can see how it may lead one to believe that it never happened. I say if it could be done back then, it would have continued or at least be occuring now and then today in order to not get rusty and to do further research on weightlessness and long term life in space and other planets and scientific experiments and such.
One would surely think that for the US to have a base on the moon would be a major coup and surly put the US at the top of the "food chain" as they could surely control the world from the moon and would do so - if they could. Maybe they can't which is why they haven't jumped on this surefire way for control and supremacy. But they maintain control with mini-wars. Makes no sense.
With all the advances in technology today I can see no logical reason why we have not been back to the moon. Could the "conspiracy nuts" and "theories" have some merit? Since we have not been back and there has been no independent proof other than propaganda from the government I believe there may be something suspicious there as the Japanese would surely have proved it with the highest resolution camera ever to orbit the moon. End of story. Case closed.
Why is it also that neither the space shuttle nor any humans have been no more than 300 miles above the earth in recent history? They are only in LEO (Low Earth Orbit). Under the 300 miles of the Van Allen Radition belt. Could it be that the theory of the Van Allen radition belt surrounding the earth forbids us from going further as it would mean death for any human passing through it as more than a few scientists have mentioned?
To me, a simple picture from the Japanese orbitor could have easily put the question to rest for all, but it has not happened, nor do I believe it will. Also, why is it that the most famous human being to have ever lived, Neil Armstrong, the first human to have set foot on the moon, has NEVER, EVER, given an interview to anybody and he remains a hermit to this day? Why? Is he afraid he might slip up? It makes no loigical sense to me why this most famous human should be such a hermit. One would think that the US would've at least used him for propangada purposes.
These must be answered and until I do further research on it I will remain on the fence, but leaning to the side that we did not land, as there would be much proof and we would be there today and going often as I was told in school by my science teachers and learned on TV from Walter Cronkite and such.
Therefore, there is merit for the theory that we never went and I believe we never will again, at least in my lifetime.
Also, wouldn't one logical thinking human person come to the conclusion that maybe the government would put the question to rest with modern proof? Not yet. Yet they let the conspiracy linger. Very odd if you ask me.
I care not for the "theory" that we left mirrors there for laser use as they could've just as easily been left by unmanned missions.
These questions and proof must be supplied in order to finally put the question to rest. Today, nearly 40 years later, there has never been any independent verification, pictures, nor anything!
And to positively, unequivocally, state that we DID land on the moon based only on books and the government saying we did with no independent verification is sincerely naive and shows that many people believe only what they are told and read and nothing more. That would explain why so many people believe the lies told by people running for office in government. Does any sane thinking person here actually believe that all governments and politicians, or wannabe politicians, and media tell their people the truth, and only the truth with no propangada or lies?
As for myself, I am a realist and I would like to have independent verification.
As a conspiracy theroist I am still out on whether we landed on the moon or not as the so-called proof is just not there yet. Also, it is something I have barely touched on, but have looked into.
All we have is fuzzy video and a government who says we did and no modern proof like pictures from the recent Japanese lunar orbiter. In fact there has been no independent proof other than what we are told, so who is being naive here? All we have is the US government's word, a few "pictures" and "video" and nothing more or modern.
Also, the cold war at the time and the threat and hysteria over the Soviets launching the first satellite could have forced the US's hand in "faking" one. I would not put it past our government. Nor would I put it past the Soviets to have faked theirs.
Also, witnessing the "landing" on TV myself I was told in school that we would have bases on the moon by the year 2000 as it was very important for us to do so. To date it has not happened and we have not been back since the early 70's. Why? To spend untold millions for a few rocks seems assinine to me and I can see how it may lead one to believe that it never happened. I say if it could be done back then, it would have continued or at least be occuring now and then today in order to not get rusty and to do further research on weightlessness and long term life in space and other planets and scientific experiments and such.
One would surely think that for the US to have a base on the moon would be a major coup and surly put the US at the top of the "food chain" as they could surely control the world from the moon and would do so - if they could. Maybe they can't which is why they haven't jumped on this surefire way for control and supremacy. But they maintain control with mini-wars. Makes no sense.
With all the advances in technology today I can see no logical reason why we have not been back to the moon. Could the "conspiracy nuts" and "theories" have some merit? Since we have not been back and there has been no independent proof other than propaganda from the government I believe there may be something suspicious there as the Japanese would surely have proved it with the highest resolution camera ever to orbit the moon. End of story. Case closed.
Why is it also that neither the space shuttle nor any humans have been no more than 300 miles above the earth in recent history? They are only in LEO (Low Earth Orbit). Under the 300 miles of the Van Allen Radition belt. Could it be that the theory of the Van Allen radition belt surrounding the earth forbids us from going further as it would mean death for any human passing through it as more than a few scientists have mentioned?
To me, a simple picture from the Japanese orbitor could have easily put the question to rest for all, but it has not happened, nor do I believe it will. Also, why is it that the most famous human being to have ever lived, Neil Armstrong, the first human to have set foot on the moon, has NEVER, EVER, given an interview to anybody and he remains a hermit to this day? Why? Is he afraid he might slip up? It makes no loigical sense to me why this most famous human should be such a hermit. One would think that the US would've at least used him for propangada purposes.
These must be answered and until I do further research on it I will remain on the fence, but leaning to the side that we did not land, as there would be much proof and we would be there today and going often as I was told in school by my science teachers and learned on TV from Walter Cronkite and such.
Therefore, there is merit for the theory that we never went and I believe we never will again, at least in my lifetime.
Also, wouldn't one logical thinking human person come to the conclusion that maybe the government would put the question to rest with modern proof? Not yet. Yet they let the conspiracy linger. Very odd if you ask me.
I care not for the "theory" that we left mirrors there for laser use as they could've just as easily been left by unmanned missions.
These questions and proof must be supplied in order to finally put the question to rest. Today, nearly 40 years later, there has never been any independent verification, pictures, nor anything!
And to positively, unequivocally, state that we DID land on the moon based only on books and the government saying we did with no independent verification is sincerely naive and shows that many people believe only what they are told and read and nothing more. That would explain why so many people believe the lies told by people running for office in government. Does any sane thinking person here actually believe that all governments and politicians, or wannabe politicians, and media tell their people the truth, and only the truth with no propangada or lies?
As for myself, I am a realist and I would like to have independent verification.
- Thread starter
- #28
Don't hesitate to give your opinion. I suppose we all have our right to do it.
I'm a believer, but it does not mean that I'm not willing to listen to what conspiracy theorists have to say. I'd like to listen to them and show them my stance on it.
I'm sure we can prove we did it, but we have to do it and It isn't as easy as I thought.
Regarding a proof, It's said that there certainly was "visible disturbance" of the soil so that it was visible from the JAXA satellite recently sent by Japan:
picture here
I'm not a photographer but if that is exatly the place were Apollo 11 landed, it's true that there are disturbances.
Cold war. That's right, the moon landings took place at the height of the cold war and transmissions came from the surface of the moon. These were picked up all over the world including by the Soviet Union. It is likely the Soviet Union would have mentioned that the signals were not coming from the moon. Why wouldn't?
Why don't go back? My opinion is that is not a matter of technology but a matter of "money". It's extremely expensive and we don't need to (at the moment?).
This point is very good. I totally agree with you.
About the Van Allen Radiation Belts, I looked up some information: it consists of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth's magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts.
NASA had to think in everything!!
About the "going away" of Neil Armstrong I've found that he's, by nature, a very shy and private man who shuns the spotlight. It is true he infrequently gives interviews or makes public appearances, but to say that he refuses to is simply not true. Armstrong was interview by Andrew Chaikin for the book A Man On the Moon, he participated in a televised press conference for the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, he was interviewed by Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley in Sep-2001, and in Nov-2003 he gave an interview to an audience of about 1,000 at Dublin's National Concert Hall. What Neil Armstrong apparently does refuse to do (and with good reason) is grant interviews to those who call him a liar and a fraud.
I agree. It can't be a Proof.
I have got a nice theory about it:
How could I say?
NASA needed to reborn the moonlandings effect to make money. It seems that the apollo's missions were losing impact in the world along the time. So, people stop watching the videos in the public domain data base of NASA, stop buying books, pictures, everything about marketing… I mean NASA need to bring constantly the atention to the most expensive program of all times (Apollo). And the conspiracy theorist is a good chance for it.
As far as I read conspiracy theory started few years after the apollo 11's achivement.
It seems that there are NASA believers and hoax believers.
Hoax believers try to proove that It was a fake while NASA believers try to debunk it
Aparently there are thousands of web address talking about the moonlanding conspiracy theory. There are even forums specially dedicated to it, thousands of vids in Youtube that try to prove they didn't do it and thousands that debunk them.
That mean that it's indeed a serious dicussion.
It ought to be fun as well as interesting.
It has been a pleasure to discuss it with you, Pachipro, with all my respect toward you.
I'm a believer, but it does not mean that I'm not willing to listen to what conspiracy theorists have to say. I'd like to listen to them and show them my stance on it.
I'm sure we can prove we did it, but we have to do it and It isn't as easy as I thought.
Regarding a proof, It's said that there certainly was "visible disturbance" of the soil so that it was visible from the JAXA satellite recently sent by Japan:
picture here
I'm not a photographer but if that is exatly the place were Apollo 11 landed, it's true that there are disturbances.
Cold war. That's right, the moon landings took place at the height of the cold war and transmissions came from the surface of the moon. These were picked up all over the world including by the Soviet Union. It is likely the Soviet Union would have mentioned that the signals were not coming from the moon. Why wouldn't?
Why don't go back? My opinion is that is not a matter of technology but a matter of "money". It's extremely expensive and we don't need to (at the moment?).
This point is very good. I totally agree with you.
About the Van Allen Radiation Belts, I looked up some information: it consists of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth's magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts.
NASA had to think in everything!!
About the "going away" of Neil Armstrong I've found that he's, by nature, a very shy and private man who shuns the spotlight. It is true he infrequently gives interviews or makes public appearances, but to say that he refuses to is simply not true. Armstrong was interview by Andrew Chaikin for the book A Man On the Moon, he participated in a televised press conference for the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, he was interviewed by Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley in Sep-2001, and in Nov-2003 he gave an interview to an audience of about 1,000 at Dublin's National Concert Hall. What Neil Armstrong apparently does refuse to do (and with good reason) is grant interviews to those who call him a liar and a fraud.
I agree. It can't be a Proof.
I have got a nice theory about it:
How could I say?
NASA needed to reborn the moonlandings effect to make money. It seems that the apollo's missions were losing impact in the world along the time. So, people stop watching the videos in the public domain data base of NASA, stop buying books, pictures, everything about marketing… I mean NASA need to bring constantly the atention to the most expensive program of all times (Apollo). And the conspiracy theorist is a good chance for it.
As far as I read conspiracy theory started few years after the apollo 11's achivement.
It seems that there are NASA believers and hoax believers.
Hoax believers try to proove that It was a fake while NASA believers try to debunk it
Aparently there are thousands of web address talking about the moonlanding conspiracy theory. There are even forums specially dedicated to it, thousands of vids in Youtube that try to prove they didn't do it and thousands that debunk them.
That mean that it's indeed a serious dicussion.
It ought to be fun as well as interesting.
It has been a pleasure to discuss it with you, Pachipro, with all my respect toward you.
Last edited:
Flashjeff
Pink Lady's Number #1 Fan
- 28 Dec 2003
- 2,585
- 77
Couldn't agree more. Adam, Jamie and the crew did a great job debunking the Moon landing conspiracy myths. Heck, that's one of my favorite episodes. But then, I had no doubt whatsoever that man landed there.
Seon-a Kim
김선아
- 24 Oct 2006
- 928
- 17
I voted: No, they didn't. NASA faked the Apollo Moon missions.
There is enough evidence that shows it was staged. Such as the shadows that are not parallel (they ALWAYS are when there in only one light source, in this case the sun)
And also...Neil Armstrong is supposed to be one of the biggest heroes then, so why was he never allowed to do any interviews of any kind afterwords? And if he did a few times, then why would that not be a fraud either...
Also those spacecrafts were not equipped to travel through the space radiation around the earth. (the weight of lead needed for the craft to be covered enough to travel though it with humans, would be to much and it would not even been able to take of from earth)
They went in space yes...but not anywhere near the moon. It was a smart fraud to win the battle with Russia to control space in the cold war.
There is enough evidence that shows it was staged. Such as the shadows that are not parallel (they ALWAYS are when there in only one light source, in this case the sun)
And also...Neil Armstrong is supposed to be one of the biggest heroes then, so why was he never allowed to do any interviews of any kind afterwords? And if he did a few times, then why would that not be a fraud either...
Also those spacecrafts were not equipped to travel through the space radiation around the earth. (the weight of lead needed for the craft to be covered enough to travel though it with humans, would be to much and it would not even been able to take of from earth)
They went in space yes...but not anywhere near the moon. It was a smart fraud to win the battle with Russia to control space in the cold war.
Bellevance
先輩
- 15 Jan 2009
- 102
- 9
Alas, you are deeply mistaken. Please, espousing these views in public, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will only embarrass you in eyes of reasonable people.
Let me suggest strongly that you educate yourself by looking into this matter more broadly and carefully. You may begin here, by investigating the evidence cited by posters preceding you in the discussion.
Armstrong, for example, has been interviewed. For you to claim otherwise is testament to your willful delusion. Only learn, and you will know the truth.
Let me suggest strongly that you educate yourself by looking into this matter more broadly and carefully. You may begin here, by investigating the evidence cited by posters preceding you in the discussion.
Armstrong, for example, has been interviewed. For you to claim otherwise is testament to your willful delusion. Only learn, and you will know the truth.
- 21 May 2003
- 14,310
- 4,404
Hummmmm????
Was JREF around then ?
Uncle Frank
Was JREF around then ?
Uncle Frank
Last edited:
Hezam
Out of Service
- 24 Aug 2007
- 2,543
- 122
We can go to USA from Riyadh in 8 hours,So of course we can go to the moon wich is not so far from the earth !
Why should NASA lose lot of money if they faked landing on the moon ??
oh..yes Uncle Frank,JREF Camera man was there and he was eating Sushi !!
Why should NASA lose lot of money if they faked landing on the moon ??
oh..yes Uncle Frank,JREF Camera man was there and he was eating Sushi !!
Bellevance
先輩
- 15 Jan 2009
- 102
- 9
You fool, Hezam! Everyone knows that was fake sushi!
Bellevance
先輩
- 15 Jan 2009
- 102
- 9
Oh, I know, and of course Uncle Frank is correct. But that sushi was only plastic. That little deception was exposed shortly after the landing, when the cameraman's wife confessed that he had actually forgotten the sushi, and so on the moon all they could do was pretend.
NASA technicians actually ate the sushi, but to this day they will not admit it.
NASA technicians actually ate the sushi, but to this day they will not admit it.
ShadowSpirit
normal is so passe
- 3 Dec 2008
- 216
- 16
That's a long ways to go to get some privacy for eating sushi.
As for the question in this thread. I'd say that we did land on the moon.
However, I sincerely understand the suspicions that linger around the topic and become the source of what conspiracy theories are derived from. The U.S. government brings it upon itself with its shady reputation. Star Wars (the political strategy, not the George Lucas film series) is a prime example of how it was within the best interest of the U.S. government to outperform the competition in the time of the Cold War. The U.S. has a notorious poker face with a history of shoddy behavior. With a Watergate here and a Jessica Lynch there, it's no wonder people question the facts.
Half-n-Half
先輩
- 17 Jul 2007
- 920
- 70
Could you please provide evidence for some of these claims? Don't you think Russia would have done all they could to disprove this hoax if they really believed it was one?
- Thread starter
- #39
[youtube]sxoouBHtyk4&feature=related[/youtube]
The magnetic field of the Van Allen Belt is a region surrounding the earth that is electrically charged (electrons and protons) of the solar wind. A fraction of the solar wind can enter the earth only at the poles causing the so-called polar lights (aurora borealis). An unprotected human being would indeed be killed by radiation within the Van Allen Belt, should he be exposed for a given length of time. The Apollo rockets, however, passed the Van Allen Belt within one hour. Additionally, the overwhelming part of the solar wind cannot penetrate the rocket's metal hull at all. Had the particle radiation of the solar wind indeed such lethal effects, even after passing through steel of several millimeters, then one had to assume that any kind of sensitive electronic equipment on board of any rocket would also have been ruined by the Van Allen Belt. However, none of the many American, Russian, European, Japanese, or Chinese missions to the moon, to other planets, to comets or into deeper space ever failed because of damage to the highly sensitive electronic equipment on board caused by the Van Allen Belt.
I wonder why, because maybe it's OK.
Transmissions came from the surface of the moon. These were picked up all over the world including by the Soviet Union. It is likely the Soviet Union would have mentioned that the signals were not coming from the moon. Why wouldn't they?
Thank you for your opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
JimmySeal
Tubthumper
- 5 Mar 2006
- 1,516
- 78
I find it very interesting that you have been in several threads recently stating very loudly that certain concepts you cannot disprove are complete rubbish, and now here you are saying that to not believe something for which you have no proof is lunacy.
You are a person of very strong opinions.
Half-n-Half
先輩
- 17 Jul 2007
- 920
- 70
YES! Purdue! That's the Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering behind him. I have a class in there; very interesting building. There are no right angles except where the walls meet the floor. Just thought I'd comment. BOILER UP!
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,972
- 232
Bellevance said:
OK show me the proof in pictures from independent sources other than the US government and I will say I am wrong. WIthout that I am still out on it as I "saw" it "live" and believed it at the time, but I have come to doubt it because 1. we have never been back (too expensive is a bunch of bull sh*t in my opinion as it would be way cheaper than what the outdated space shuttle has cost us over the years.) and 2. No other country or independent researcher has been able to verify it.
As President Reagan used to say, "Trust, but verify."
And also, any independent scientist who wants to prove a theory and/or fact, must have at least two outside sources verify and confirm his/her hypothesis/theory/fact and be reviewed by "peers". If that is the case, why is it not asked for and demanded of in the case of the moon landing?
The laughable photo of "disturbed" areas on the moon is a joke. With all the advances in astronomy today, as well as the Japanese orbitor, we should at least have a picture of the flag and rover that were left there. To date there has been no photos.
Until then I will stand by my own theory that we probably did not land there. Once shown independent proof, I will concede and apologize for my doubts. If the scientific community demands outside proof, why can't I?
ShadowSpirit
normal is so passe
- 3 Dec 2008
- 216
- 16
That is a solid challenge there pachipro. Even though it wasn't directed towards me, I have sought out the proof you require...
As you can plainly see. William Shatner was in fact on the moon and apparently was confronted by a dangerous alien called a Gorn. I believe it is safe to say that you now consider yourself convinced by my irrefutable evidence.
Sorry, just trying to keep things interesting.
Bellevance
先輩
- 15 Jan 2009
- 102
- 9
For all kinds of reasons, some understandable, some bewildering, many people love to believe in elaborate conspiracies. It's thrilling, in a way, I suppose, for a person to imagine he is in possession of some secret, shocking information. He can also feel clever and shrewd and challenging in his cynicism. He's not one of the gullible sheep! He knows how devious those sly people in power can be! That's partly why the moon hoax theories persist.
Snopes.com is an independent web site devoted to finding the publishing the truth of all kinds of wild and not-so-wild claims. Here is what Snopes has to say about what it terms a "fanciful notion":
"The fanciful notion that the six Apollo lunar missions Neil Armstrong launched by the USA between 1969 and 1972, during which a total of twelve men landed and walked on the moon, were elaborate hoaxes staged in top secret desert locations and movie studios here on Earth has been a familiar aspect of popular culture and conspiracy theory since the first moon landing in 1969. Perhaps because Americans' confidence in their government was at a low ebb due to America's controversial military involvement in Vietnam, perhaps because people felt threatened by the rapid onrush of technological progress the space program represented, or perhaps just some because people enjoy the furtive thrill of disseminating the "secret knowledge" encapsulated conspiracy theories, the moon landings have become a locus for cynical disbelief in America's tremendous achievements in space exploration."
Is This an Outtake from the Apollo 11 Moon Landing?
Here is a site with its own rebuttals to all of the hoax claims along with links to other independent sites with extensive rebuttals to the hoax purveyors' specious claims.
Science News | Science Mission Directorate
The Wikipedia entry on this subject offers a link to "abundant independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings." It's worth looking at.
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia
Hey, Half-n-half, my dad was a Purdue grad, Class of 1939. He used to say those years in Lafayette were some of the best years of his life.
Snopes.com is an independent web site devoted to finding the publishing the truth of all kinds of wild and not-so-wild claims. Here is what Snopes has to say about what it terms a "fanciful notion":
"The fanciful notion that the six Apollo lunar missions Neil Armstrong launched by the USA between 1969 and 1972, during which a total of twelve men landed and walked on the moon, were elaborate hoaxes staged in top secret desert locations and movie studios here on Earth has been a familiar aspect of popular culture and conspiracy theory since the first moon landing in 1969. Perhaps because Americans' confidence in their government was at a low ebb due to America's controversial military involvement in Vietnam, perhaps because people felt threatened by the rapid onrush of technological progress the space program represented, or perhaps just some because people enjoy the furtive thrill of disseminating the "secret knowledge" encapsulated conspiracy theories, the moon landings have become a locus for cynical disbelief in America's tremendous achievements in space exploration."
Is This an Outtake from the Apollo 11 Moon Landing?
Here is a site with its own rebuttals to all of the hoax claims along with links to other independent sites with extensive rebuttals to the hoax purveyors' specious claims.
Science News | Science Mission Directorate
The Wikipedia entry on this subject offers a link to "abundant independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings." It's worth looking at.
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia
Hey, Half-n-half, my dad was a Purdue grad, Class of 1939. He used to say those years in Lafayette were some of the best years of his life.
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,972
- 232
Bellevance, I care not for what snopes or whatever posted r what the thinking of the US is as I was told differently from my own teachers and the news media at the time. I want proof and pictures. Is that too much to ask in this so-called advanced technological society of ours?
The whole case could be put to rest with even one recent picture from an independent resource. Until then I stand by my thinking and nothing else matters. As it was said in the Tom Cruise movie, "Show me the money!"
The whole case could be put to rest with even one recent picture from an independent resource. Until then I stand by my thinking and nothing else matters. As it was said in the Tom Cruise movie, "Show me the money!"
Bellevance
先輩
- 15 Jan 2009
- 102
- 9
I don't know where you come down on the spectrum, Pachipro, but I do know it's often impossible to sway the most vehement conspiracy lovers, because they refuse to have their special, secret understandings deflated. They tend to demand evidence, standing there with their arms crossed and their jaws thrust out, saying "Prove it. Go on. Let's see you prove it."
But no proof ever proves good enough for them. They thrive on being skeptics for skepticism's sake. In fact, however, all of their claims have been thoroughly debunked.
Anyone who sincerely wants to weigh the abundant evidence--including photographs--in support of the moon landings needs only to look for it.
But no proof ever proves good enough for them. They thrive on being skeptics for skepticism's sake. In fact, however, all of their claims have been thoroughly debunked.
Anyone who sincerely wants to weigh the abundant evidence--including photographs--in support of the moon landings needs only to look for it.
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
I'm not going to,link all of this guys videos, just to his Youtube page.
http://youtube.com/user/shanedk
The videos to see are the Bogosity series episode 9 Lunar Lunacy II and the original Bogosity series on it episode 3 Lunar Lunacy. He is quite agressive with it, but you can understand why.
http://youtube.com/user/shanedk
The videos to see are the Bogosity series episode 9 Lunar Lunacy II and the original Bogosity series on it episode 3 Lunar Lunacy. He is quite agressive with it, but you can understand why.
- Thread starter
- #48
The most difficult video to debunk
I have been trying to debunk this video by all means, and my conclusion is that it must be static electricity came from the astronaut space-suit.
I cannot imagine any other explanation for it.
Think that the moon's soil is a mixture of 90% of silicates, so very easy to get electrically charged. Astronauts drag all over the moon's soil during the mission.
Do you think could there be another cientific explanation for this video?
It's quite interesting.
[youtube]n1UEv2PIzl4&feature=related[/youtube]
I have been trying to debunk this video by all means, and my conclusion is that it must be static electricity came from the astronaut space-suit.
I cannot imagine any other explanation for it.
Think that the moon's soil is a mixture of 90% of silicates, so very easy to get electrically charged. Astronauts drag all over the moon's soil during the mission.
Do you think could there be another cientific explanation for this video?
It's quite interesting.
[youtube]n1UEv2PIzl4&feature=related[/youtube]
Bellevance
先輩
- 15 Jan 2009
- 102
- 9
As a rationalist, Jimmy, my strong conviction is that no person should ever declare his firm belief in anything for which there is insufficient evidence. Sound opinions must always be supported by sound evidence.
That's the beginning and the end of it.
