You are quite right but the problem is that the debunkers are then counter-debunked with further information which appears as equally convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSkyGB
Printable View
You are quite right but the problem is that the debunkers are then counter-debunked with further information which appears as equally convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSkyGB
equally HUUUGE and relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
The operative word in this sentence is "IF"Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugenie
This thread is quite entertaining but not quite up to the standards of Capricorn 1 - that had pictures....
Just a tangent to think about; I can see why the filming of the 'moon scenes' were made on earth, but does that neccesarily mean they didn't go to the moon? I can imagine that if you're going to send a crew to the moon, and you kniow the entire population is waiting for live footage, what do you o if there is no transmission, and how could you know if there was transmission untill they were up there. Making 'backup' scenes seems the logical thing to do.
But really, I have no idea what the truth is, and it doesn't really interest me. The whole Imperialist race to conquer the moon and the universe seems a silly form of escapism to me.
I can't see the logic behind this reasoning. Are you saying that NASA was prepared to show a simulation of the landings while explaining that they couldn't transmit the actual thing for technical reasons. Hardly anybody would have believed that the actual landing had taken place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
Rather the opposite; they went, the transmission was faulty, so they just 'transmitted' recordings they had already made, and passed them off as the real thing.
Look, I'm not claiming anything. I don't necessarily think that's what happened, it just occured to me. Not arguing with anyone, since I really don't think I have any qualifications to bring to the discussion.
No, that's OK, but what amazes me is that members of this forum would prefer to spend time talking about what they had to eat or what they are wearing rather than discuss something as important as the moon landings. What is it with you people that you can't see the significance of the original thread ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
Although you might think it no great loss, I am seriously thinking of abandoning this website on the grounds tha many of it's members can't be taken seriously.
Well, for me this site is a place of escapism. I spend every other hour of the day discussing politics, and what not in class, out of class, at work, with family, with friends. What I'm wearing or eating doesn't matter at all, of course. I have many times wanted to add comments to threads, but you know, I haven't had time to read all the philosophers, or the appropriate texts, or studied the available data. If I do comment it would often be based on personal opinion and analysis. Others have been flamed for that before, and it can be a little intimidating. I don't necessarily want to spend my time arguing about things, which it just often seems to be, what many threads digress to.
On the particular topic of moonlandings, no i don't find, wether or not we did, so important, but it's fine that others do. I'm not sure I see what the exact significance of wandering around up there, is. I'm not sure I even approve of all the funding that goes into this, is it going to the right place? Americans spent millions of dollars developing an anti-gravity pen, the russians brought pencils...? :)
I think people do see the significance (just look at the views this thread has in just a few days ;))..but some may be a little sceptical as to contributing in fear of stirring a hornet's nest..ok for my part i agree with all the questions you've posed..seen too many documentaries on this subject and i wasn't satisfied by the answers..the fact that i haven't studied astrophysics may have something to do with this :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Edit
I also have one more question to add (in good faith..it's a real question not a rhetorical one). If moon landing is possible why are there no moon landings since (not just by americans, by any nation)? Isn't the moon interesting enough to be studied further?
I think that's probably because it's easier to send robot probes up there.??? they may be expensive to produce, but then they are easier to maintain because they don't need food, space suits etc. I think the Americans only sent a man to the moon back at that time because they wanted to prove they can do it. They wanted to win the space race but in the long run, it's more efficient to use robots???Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
Yes sleepy, i have heard that explanation before..but is sending robots the same as sending people, scientists, geologists etc? I don't think that robots can replace scientists in field work. I don't know. You may be right..but it's not what i was taught in uni..i spent two years of my life (almost) studying rocks for my dissertation..and instead of studying the rock shambles available in the lab we took a few excursions to see them in their natural environment (to study fractures, joints, ground displacements using topographic organs and such)..i am aware of the costs and the difficulties-impossibilities to do that on the moon..but still..??
Edit
One could think that after 40 years they could get there?
I appreciate your concern about contributing to certain threads because of lack familiarity with the subject but, surely, on this General forum the majority of posters will not have a great knowlege of the subject. Nobody should be afraid to give their opinion, however misinformed ,and if in the process they are corrected in a reasonable manner, then they have learned something from the thread. If rudeness or intimdation is used, as opposed to a little fun, by a forum member, it should be reported to the moderators. Of course there will be arguments, or differing points of view, but that's what a forum is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
Like you, I have no particular interest in the moon landing itself but I am interested in politics.The ramifications of a country falsifying such an event are very far-reaching and that is why I am concerned that this thread has not generated the interest it deserves.
According to Wickipedia, NASA carried out six manned lunar landings between 1969 - 1972Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
And..? that's it? The question remains.
I thought that you were implying that there had been only one 'manned' moon landing. However, it still doesn't alter the fact that there appear to be areas of doubt about the project; a lie told once can be told many times. Nevertheless, there is a valid reason why NASA has not attempted manned moon missions since 1972. Since that time, NASA has had to curtail its expenditure due to the enormous cost of its operations. This is one reason why the USA entered into co-operation with the Russian Federation over manned flights to the Mir space station. The economic crisis that is now beginning to grip the USA, and by extension the rest of the world, may delay NASA's and other countries space activities further.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
yeah, it's about time humanity got their/our priorities straight.
Oh i wholeheartendly agree with that! There are far more important issues (poverty, hunger) and i find money on research on natural resources (such as geothermal power, tidal waves etc) as money better spent..Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
The point of making the original moon landind was to beat the Russians during the Cold War (in a nutshell.) After doing so, and winning, there was no political purpose to another (massively publicised) landing. As a previous poster said, NASA did in fact conduct six manned moon landings between '69 and '72. Also- do you have any idea how expensive sending men to the moon is??? One just can't take up and do it on a whim. After the original landings, and discovering most of what they wanted to about the moon, they moved on to other things. Funding for NASA (I don't know about other space programmes) has been less and less and less every year since the first landing. >.< Even if they wanted to, they couldn't afford to do it now.Quote:
I also have one more question to add (in good faith..it's a real question not a rhetorical one). If moon landing is possible why are there no moon landings since (not just by americans, by any nation)? Isn't the moon interesting enough to be studied further?
i would tend to agree with that but it doesn't address the central question as to whether the moon landings were genuine.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
True..that's why i responted to the thread in the first place :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaT
Why the eye-roll? I think that's a perfectly reasonable explanation.
Yes and thank's for doing so. At least you and some other members have taken an interest in one of the more comment worthy threads to appear on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
I hope others will also express an opinion about the moon landings.
@ Becca
Yep it is, but like i said i am aware of the costs..they are huge..i know there were other landings-in fact i remember who was the one who first passed this particular piece of information a few years ago- it was shortly after i had heard of the whole moan hoax theory..hehe (i wasn't clear enough in my first post, bad phrasing perhaps, but me and B Bean have established that already) and i think that in order to learn enough about a place whether on earth or everywhere scientists have to get there (especially when it comes to soils, rock formations, land displacements, geological strata and suchlike stuff). So i don't think they discovered much as it is. And i disagree that the whole research concerning the moon is a whim (perhaps i don't understand what you mean) :)
The whole cutting down of the costs is perfectly acceptable as an explanation..i wasn't aware of that..it makes one interested to know what programs NASA has chosen instead of learning more about the moon.
You are welcome :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
As a race I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
Even though, it HAS BEEN a race as well, back then, when people like a "mythical"* C. Columbus (C. Colón) looked at the ocean and thought with himself "I want to see the other side of the world", or "lets get to China through the other side of the world" (...), a race between Spain and Portugal (soon later, with the Dutch, and the French, and the English).
I agree that the race isn't good in itself, because it means competition, and, among nations -- sports apart -- it's never been good. But we've been through this, so, why not thinking about colonizing the Solar system? (We DON'T and probably WON'T have means of going beyond that but, even if we come to do, it'll only happen if we give a first step (...)) It sounds exciting to me, and not easy, though.
I like the idea of getting to Mars and to Europa, up there. A ... 'n achievement, a new achievement to mankind. Possibly one that we might hope to do "the right way" (haha!) this time ...
If noone believed, there would be no discovery~
[& I'm still not here :rolleyes: ...]
__________
*Not doubting he existed, only emphasizing the romantic look (I myself, but not only) many people have on such (historical) figure (...)--
OK, that is quite enough. Let's keep things civil, shall we?
/Claes
Since we have proved once more that we, as a group, are not able to discuss certain topics civilly, this thread will now be closed.
Some offensive posts have also been deleted.