| Did we really land on the moon? 20:42 - Dec 12 with 19659 views | ShackletonR |
Interesting stuff, makes you wonder what else might not be what it seems!. |  |
| "Stan work hard, could score goals in the air, and was complete team player. He headed balls off the line, and he had so much skill, balance, finesse and amazing touch. His mobility, that electrifying burst of 30 yards was exciting to watch"...Don Shanks. |
| |  |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 10:25 - Dec 13 with 2646 views | BrianMcCarthy |
There's not a hope anyone traveled through space or landed on anything in that yoke. It's like something out of my Blue Peter childhood. |  |
| |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 10:26 - Dec 13 with 2643 views | klr |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 10:25 - Dec 13 by BrianMcCarthy |
There's not a hope anyone traveled through space or landed on anything in that yoke. It's like something out of my Blue Peter childhood. |
About as much chance of this being true as there is of CIA construct "Bin Laden" being behind 9/11 |  | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 10:46 - Dec 13 with 2626 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 10:19 - Dec 13 by TW_R |
Well, that could be it, or, as your photo shows, it could be that photos of the earth from the moon were pretty pointless with the camera equipment available then, particularly as dozens of better shots of the earth from space were taken by pretty much all of the Apollo missions.
Could also be because they had a limited supply of film and thought it was more appropriate to use it taking photos of the place they were visiting as opposed to the place they had just come from. You're anology about the Great Wall of China works the other way. Why go all the way there and then take photos of where you've just come from?
|
You think it would be a waste of camera and film to point the camera at the earth when you've got to the moon? When they spent ages filming them bumming around playing gold and bouncing around?
The one picture showed that it would have come up fine so that's not an excuse.
"You're anology about the Great Wall of China works the other way. Why go all the way there and then take photos of where you've just come from? "
Well if you think that a view of the earth by humans on the moon is not worth seeing then I don't think we're going to agree somehow.
Interestingly when people show mock ups of the moon landings they almost always have the earth in the background. It's become the iconic shot of the moon landings even though the photo itself never actually happened:
I'm not saying they didn't go there, I just find it very strange. | | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 11:01 - Dec 13 with 2608 views | THEBUSH |
Poor old Patrick Moore believed the USA landed on the moon, that's good enough for me !! |  | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 11:05 - Dec 13 with 2600 views | Bluce_Ree |
I saw the spare lunar lander at the Air and Space Museum in Washington. It's pretty ropey but it was over 40 years ago.
All of the debunking theories can be countered. Did this Channel 5 shit go on about the shadows not lining up also? Or did they casually drop that after people recreated the exact same thing using a single light source?
As Brian Cox tweeted #yeswelandedonthemoonyouf*ckwits |  |
| ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE THROUGH MARTI THE REDEEMER WHO STRENGTHENS ME. |
| |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 11:16 - Dec 13 with 2588 views | Metallica_Hoop |
|  |
| Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent |
| |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 11:22 - Dec 13 with 2579 views | TW_R |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 10:46 - Dec 13 by Clive_Anderson |
You think it would be a waste of camera and film to point the camera at the earth when you've got to the moon? When they spent ages filming them bumming around playing gold and bouncing around?
The one picture showed that it would have come up fine so that's not an excuse.
"You're anology about the Great Wall of China works the other way. Why go all the way there and then take photos of where you've just come from? "
Well if you think that a view of the earth by humans on the moon is not worth seeing then I don't think we're going to agree somehow.
Interestingly when people show mock ups of the moon landings they almost always have the earth in the background. It's become the iconic shot of the moon landings even though the photo itself never actually happened:
I'm not saying they didn't go there, I just find it very strange. |
Well, I guess it depends on what the expectations were of what the project was meant to be about. Was it more useful taking photos of the Earth, which had already been done dozens of times from space, or analyse interactions, movements etc on the moon. I personally think it was the latter.
A question, not specifically aimed at you Clive, is, if the moon landings were faked to beat the USSR in the space race (or for any other reason), why do it 6 times?
Surely once would have been enough, or even twice for a bit of overkill. But 6 times seems a bit excessive. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Did we really land on the moon? on 11:30 - Dec 13 with 2572 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 11:22 - Dec 13 by TW_R |
Well, I guess it depends on what the expectations were of what the project was meant to be about. Was it more useful taking photos of the Earth, which had already been done dozens of times from space, or analyse interactions, movements etc on the moon. I personally think it was the latter.
A question, not specifically aimed at you Clive, is, if the moon landings were faked to beat the USSR in the space race (or for any other reason), why do it 6 times?
Surely once would have been enough, or even twice for a bit of overkill. But 6 times seems a bit excessive. |
But they ended up taking loads of photos/film seemingly for the hell of it anyway.
They probably did go, it just bugs me as it just seems very strange that they wouldn't take any pictures of the earth at all.
Anyway here's some more mockups of the iconic photo that just wasn't worth bothering with:
 [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 11:32 - Dec 13 with 2563 views | TheBlob |
And the ISS doesn't exist either then?That bright light you see passing overhead at 11pm?Plenny o' radiatioin at that altitude.
Good reason why you don't get many pix of the earth is some kunt left the hasselblad camera that had been taking shots.
Humans got there,and like a dog chasing a car pissed on it and went home.
You humans at least should have had bases mining Helium 3 by now,bases on Mars,Jupiter's moons and the first steps into interstellar space using nuclear material found on your moon.
But you blew it.
However I can get you a decent second hand Tachyon Drive unit,save you the hassle,never raced or rallyed...... |  |
| |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 11:38 - Dec 13 with 2554 views | adhoc_qpr |
I found it quite interesting, but i assume that all the evidence for why they didn't happen has also been debunked by experts?
The programme was pretty weighted in favour of conspiracy theories. | | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:09 - Dec 13 with 2523 views | QPunkR |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 11:38 - Dec 13 by adhoc_qpr |
I found it quite interesting, but i assume that all the evidence for why they didn't happen has also been debunked by experts?
The programme was pretty weighted in favour of conspiracy theories. |
Well yeah, cos it was all about those theories about us not having actually gone.
I found it an interesting programme with some arguments I'd never heard before, which I do believe raise some questions.
Shirley to debunk/confirm this all someone would have to do is point a relatively strong telescope up at that big Edam and check the Sea of Tranquility for all the rubbish left behind?? |  |
| |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:20 - Dec 13 with 2513 views | PinnerPaul |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 09:29 - Dec 13 by jonno |
Errr....no. The only manned space missions that have gone outside the protection from radiation that is provided by the earth's atmosphere are .... the missions to the moon. |
What?!
That's nonsense - loads of space missions that didn't go to the moon but outside the earth's atmosphere. | | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:25 - Dec 13 with 2507 views | Clive_Anderson |
I think it's worth questioning things like this rather than blindingly believing them even if they turn out to be true.
If you look at some of the stuff that gets declassified by governments after 50 years or so then you can see why people are reluctant to trust governments in everything that they do.
The reason I have some doubts over the moon landings is just because of human nature. If I wanted to show the world that we could put a man on the moon, would I go to all the trouble of actually doing it (with the huge cost and risks involved if it goes wrong) or would I find it easier to fake it?
I imagine the hardest thing to fake would be an accurate image of the earth from the moon, which makes me wonder why it isn't in any of the photos. | | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:32 - Dec 13 with 2496 views | QPunkR |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:20 - Dec 13 by PinnerPaul |
What?!
That's nonsense - loads of space missions that didn't go to the moon but outside the earth's atmosphere. |
Yes but there's a little-known but ABSOLUTELY RUDDY MASSIVE stretch of radiation around our planet which begins a few (thousands and thousands) miles outside the Earth's atmosphere. Yes there have obviously been loads of missions to outside of the Earth's atmosphere, but none of them have gone as far as this belt (can't remember what it's called) - the only ones that *allegedly* did are the Apollo missions | |
| |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:39 - Dec 13 with 2295 views | jonno |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:20 - Dec 13 by PinnerPaul |
What?!
That's nonsense - loads of space missions that didn't go to the moon but outside the earth's atmosphere. |
That's not actually true, according to the scientists on the programme last night.
The atmosphere around the earth provides protection from the sun's radiation while you are in orbit. It's only when you leave that orbit and head away from the earth that the radiation is too intense for humans to stand, unless you have something like a thick lead shielded barrier. That's why there have never been problems with the space stations, space walks etc. |  | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:40 - Dec 13 with 2293 views | jonno |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:32 - Dec 13 by QPunkR |
Yes but there's a little-known but ABSOLUTELY RUDDY MASSIVE stretch of radiation around our planet which begins a few (thousands and thousands) miles outside the Earth's atmosphere. Yes there have obviously been loads of missions to outside of the Earth's atmosphere, but none of them have gone as far as this belt (can't remember what it's called) - the only ones that *allegedly* did are the Apollo missions |
It's called the Van Allen belt. | | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:41 - Dec 13 with 2292 views | TW_R |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:25 - Dec 13 by Clive_Anderson |
I think it's worth questioning things like this rather than blindingly believing them even if they turn out to be true.
If you look at some of the stuff that gets declassified by governments after 50 years or so then you can see why people are reluctant to trust governments in everything that they do.
The reason I have some doubts over the moon landings is just because of human nature. If I wanted to show the world that we could put a man on the moon, would I go to all the trouble of actually doing it (with the huge cost and risks involved if it goes wrong) or would I find it easier to fake it?
I imagine the hardest thing to fake would be an accurate image of the earth from the moon, which makes me wonder why it isn't in any of the photos. |
As said above, why try and fake it 6 times though? Once would have been enough. There would have been nothing to be gained politically by faking it 3, 4, 5 or 6 times. The only thing that would have happened is an increase in the risk of all these fakes being committed. Just makes no sense whatsoever. They could have faked one landing and then said there was no budget for anymore.
In terms of the cost, the majority went on building Saturn 5 and getting that off the ground. Seems quite extreme to send that into the atmosphere 17 times to build a hoax story. Landing on the moon cost a fraction of getting there in the first place. Is anyone suggesting that Saturn 5 didn't actually take off either?
Not only that, based on some of the "conspiracy" evidence it would appear that NASA could come up with amazing film sets, filming and lighting techniques etc to fake all this, but then publicise pictures with studio lights in?
And NASA then decided that they needed a change and throw in a pretend disaster in the making with Apollo 13. All seems very bizarre to me. | | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:48 - Dec 13 with 2271 views | QPunkR |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:40 - Dec 13 by jonno |
It's called the Van Allen belt. |
I thank you | |
| |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:52 - Dec 13 with 2268 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:41 - Dec 13 by TW_R |
As said above, why try and fake it 6 times though? Once would have been enough. There would have been nothing to be gained politically by faking it 3, 4, 5 or 6 times. The only thing that would have happened is an increase in the risk of all these fakes being committed. Just makes no sense whatsoever. They could have faked one landing and then said there was no budget for anymore.
In terms of the cost, the majority went on building Saturn 5 and getting that off the ground. Seems quite extreme to send that into the atmosphere 17 times to build a hoax story. Landing on the moon cost a fraction of getting there in the first place. Is anyone suggesting that Saturn 5 didn't actually take off either?
Not only that, based on some of the "conspiracy" evidence it would appear that NASA could come up with amazing film sets, filming and lighting techniques etc to fake all this, but then publicise pictures with studio lights in?
And NASA then decided that they needed a change and throw in a pretend disaster in the making with Apollo 13. All seems very bizarre to me. |
"As said above, why try and fake it 6 times though? "
I guess for the same reason they would actually go there 6 times. If the main reason for putting men on the moon was prestige then the same argument holds regardless of whether it was real or faked.
I'm sure Saturn 5 went into space, there are many photos that prove it beyond doubt.They could have thought it was possible to put men on the moon as they had already been to space, but then they realised it was too risky further down the line. Having a load of astronauts die with the world watching would have been unthinkable to the USA in those times. It doesn't mean the other space missions didn't happen.
I agree that a lot of conspiracy theories are rubbish. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:57 - Dec 13 with 2257 views | TheBlob |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:32 - Dec 13 by QPunkR |
Yes but there's a little-known but ABSOLUTELY RUDDY MASSIVE stretch of radiation around our planet which begins a few (thousands and thousands) miles outside the Earth's atmosphere. Yes there have obviously been loads of missions to outside of the Earth's atmosphere, but none of them have gone as far as this belt (can't remember what it's called) - the only ones that *allegedly* did are the Apollo missions |
I think they use polyethylene now as shielding....
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
| |
| |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:57 - Dec 13 with 2256 views | jonno |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:41 - Dec 13 by TW_R |
As said above, why try and fake it 6 times though? Once would have been enough. There would have been nothing to be gained politically by faking it 3, 4, 5 or 6 times. The only thing that would have happened is an increase in the risk of all these fakes being committed. Just makes no sense whatsoever. They could have faked one landing and then said there was no budget for anymore.
In terms of the cost, the majority went on building Saturn 5 and getting that off the ground. Seems quite extreme to send that into the atmosphere 17 times to build a hoax story. Landing on the moon cost a fraction of getting there in the first place. Is anyone suggesting that Saturn 5 didn't actually take off either?
Not only that, based on some of the "conspiracy" evidence it would appear that NASA could come up with amazing film sets, filming and lighting techniques etc to fake all this, but then publicise pictures with studio lights in?
And NASA then decided that they needed a change and throw in a pretend disaster in the making with Apollo 13. All seems very bizarre to me. |
The rockets took off all right and they went into orbit. The programme suggests that's where they stayed though, and never went to the moon. Other questions, why no crater under the LEM from it's retro's when it landed? Why no settlement of dust on it's feet etc. Why was the US flag flapping in an environment with no atmosphere and no wind etc? | | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 13:07 - Dec 13 with 2240 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:57 - Dec 13 by jonno |
The rockets took off all right and they went into orbit. The programme suggests that's where they stayed though, and never went to the moon. Other questions, why no crater under the LEM from it's retro's when it landed? Why no settlement of dust on it's feet etc. Why was the US flag flapping in an environment with no atmosphere and no wind etc? |
Answers to all this hogwash here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/02/apollo-11-hoax-myths-debunked |  |
| |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 13:09 - Dec 13 with 2238 views | Clive_Anderson |
No answer to why there are no pictures of the earth from the landings. Never seen it explained anywhere.
Easy to debunk crap theories. | | | |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 13:20 - Dec 13 with 2220 views | PinnerPaul |
| Did we really land on the moon? on 12:32 - Dec 13 by QPunkR |
Yes but there's a little-known but ABSOLUTELY RUDDY MASSIVE stretch of radiation around our planet which begins a few (thousands and thousands) miles outside the Earth's atmosphere. Yes there have obviously been loads of missions to outside of the Earth's atmosphere, but none of them have gone as far as this belt (can't remember what it's called) - the only ones that *allegedly* did are the Apollo missions |
Ok, but we're not talking about just one mission are we?
There were previous missions that orbited the moon but didn't land - were those all faked as well? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
