Some moon landing hoax questions

How embarrassing for the USA when China becomes the first to put a man on the moon. :wink:
 
Ask your buddy about the Russians.

The Russians were in direct competition with us to get to the moon. They had spies in the highest levels of our government
as well as NASA. (and if you read Tom Kelly's or Pellegrino's book
there are even implications of sabotage!)
The soviet Union would have known if it was a hoax and would have wasted no time in exposing it back in 1969. Instead the Russians cancelled their program and grudgeingly congradulated us too!

And if He says that the russians knew that it couldn't be done or the radiation belt thing or the money issue. Remeber, they were the first in space, they were willing to spend the money, and they didn't have the same considerations for saftey that we did.
Compare their list of casualties in their space programe to ours.

How embarrassing for the USA when China becomes the first to put a man on the moon.
Click to expand...

Ditto. We NEED to go back to the moon. We have the technology
to do it. We've had it for 40 years. The moon is great for the preperation for the manned Mars mission.
 
There's a really funny film clip (filmed in a studio in England I think) showing the "one small step" bit, then a lighting boom comes down and hits "Armstrong" on the head. I've lost the url, but it's fall-down funny. Anybody know where it is?

Rolfe.
 
Blondin said:
The real joke about Bart Sibrel is that he presents all his "evidence" as incontrovertible proof that the Apollo landings were faked yet he's prepared to ignore all the "evidence" if the astronauts will just swear on a bible?

*snip*
Click to expand...
That is an exceptionally good point! I almost wish they would do it, but only after he had publicly declared that it would convince him.

I also like the BJ argument ;)

...and how anybody can read BA's take on it and still believe that crap is totally beyond me.

Hans
 
Oh jesus.
I just talked to my Mom, who I'm not very close with since she didn't raise me. But we're friendly. I helped her give up god. That's one point for me.
But, I had completely forgotten (the subject doesn't come up often) one of her other wacky things.
While telling her about TAM2, I mentioned Phil Plait and his work to bust the whackjobs.
Well....Mom is one of those whackjobs. I didn't argue with her too much, I pulled up Phils site while we were on the phone and tried to reason it out, but she just said, "boy, they have an answer to everything, don't they?".
She says we've never been to the moon.

Now, I'll go easy on people when they say we didn't go to the moon the first time. We WERE in a race that we had to win, no matter what. So if you want to believe that the first time was a fake, I'll say, "it could have been". But NEVER? Of course we've been.
She says there's no proof. Damn me, I've gotten her to be a skeptic but it sure is a pain in the ass in this instance.
Don't we have hubble photos to prove it? What can I offer her as solid proof? She just brushed off all of the explanations on the BA site.
Oh man, my Mom's a moon loonie.
 
MoeFaux said:
Don't we have hubble photos to prove it? What can I offer her as solid proof?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no. Hubble wasn't designed for lunar observation, but even if it had been, it's still not powerful enough to zoom in on such a tiny area of the moon's surface. As of now, there isn't a 'scope on earth capable of showing the materials we left on the lunar surface. This page provides mathematical examples.

IMO, even if we did have a 'scope capable of resolving on such a tiny area of the lunar surface, that still wouldn't convince the moon hoaxers that we've been there. The fact that they already ignore a wealth of evidence documenting the Apollo missions suggests to me they'd just shrug it off as they have everything else, or perhaps claim the photos were faked too. There is little in this case, from my limited experience, you can do with someone whose mind is already made up.
 
I thought that one of the Apollo missions left a laser reflector on the surface of the moon, and that lasers have been bounced off said reflector to accurately determine the moon's distance from the earth. I thought that some college students had even replicated the experiment. Is this true, or is it just a false memory implanted in my brain by the Reptilian masters <g>?
If it IS true, how do the moon landing deniers account for the reflector's presence on the moon?
 
Crow T. Robot said:
I thought that one of the Apollo missions left a laser reflector on the surface of the moon, and that lasers have been bounced off said reflector to accurately determine the moon's distance from the earth. I thought that some college students had even replicated the experiment. Is this true, or is it just a false memory implanted in my brain by the Reptilian masters <g>?
If it IS true, how do the moon landing deniers account for the reflector's presence on the moon?
Click to expand...

Good point. This is true and is still ongoing.
 
Crow T. Robot said:
If it IS true, how do the moon landing deniers account for the reflector's presence on the moon?
Click to expand...

Pfft, silly question. Since we never went to the moon, no such equipment can be there.
NASA disinformation agents just want you to believe it's there as part of the illusion. ;)

Yeppers, as Drooper pointed out, good observation indeed. There are a total of four reflectors on the moon's surface. Here's an article from space.com on the subject as well as a NASA press release and info about the McDonald Laser Ranging Station (University of Texas), which has participated in the ongoing measurements.
 
The one point I think is always a fatal flaw in the Moon Hoax conspiracy is this: The Consequences of Failure. A failure of an attempted hoax would have been far more disastrous than a failure of an attempted actual moon landing. Even if a hoax were being considered at the time, anyone who analyzed the potential risk of failure of the two scenarios would have immediately come to the realization that attempting the moon landing for real would be obvious choice.
 
Stumpy said:
Hi UKBoy

I think that this article deals with the first two questions:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/24/1037697982142.html

On the third point, there are a large number of reports suggesting that Aldrin punched a guy who asked him to swear on the Bible that the landing took place. Aldrin claims that he was acting in self-defence having been assaulted by the Bible wielding doubter. Certainly the courts seemed to have accepted this because no charges were bought against Aldrin. I don't think refusing to swear on the Bible on that single occasion and under those circumstances equates to Aldrin being generally against the principle of affirming his moon landing with the Bible. Has anybody else asked him if he would do this?

regards

Stumpy
Click to expand...

To accuse Aldrin of not achieving one of mankind's astounding feats of the 20th century is one of the lowest forms of insult. To ask that he swear to it is further insult. Sibrel had it coming.
 
Hi UK

I teach 7th grade science and in a few weeks we will be studying the moon. I met Phil (BAD Astronomer) last year at TAM and asked where I could get the film. I just found it this past week (actually a student found it for me). I will show the film after we do our moon studies and then ask for other possibilities than what is presented on the video. The next class I will take out Phil's book and go down the list of discrepancies. I have no doubt that the students will come up with many of the real answers. We spend the first part of the year looking at the scientific method by applying it to the paranormal so they are probably more skeptical that the average 7th grader.

Doing something like this might be interesting for the other teachers on the forum. Or for people like you UK. But there is nothing you can do to convince the true believer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom