Who here thinks that all of the Moon Landings were staged? [Archive]

View Full Version : Who here thinks that all of the Moon Landings were staged?

GROOVE VICTIM

10-16-2003, 11:25 AM

If so, do you guys believe that the Voyager, Magellen, and Pioneer missions were staged too?

Dolemite73

10-16-2003, 11:29 AM

My grandmother will go to her grave never believing we have been to the moon. I think we have been, but some of those shadows in some of the pics are kind of weird.

DLow

10-16-2003, 11:29 AM

I don't know. I was sure all of those missions were valid until someone suggested they would be impossible because we have not made the required technological advances to fly outside of the Earth's gravitational pull.

But once again, graemlins/conf44.gif

El Mayimbe

10-16-2003, 11:33 AM

nah,
too much $$ involved
too many people involved as well to create such a big coverup and have them quiet after all these years

just bs

upliftdisco365

10-16-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Dolemite73:
My grandmother will go to her grave never believing we have been to the moon. Same for my Great-Grandma. She died believing that it was a hoax.

Bill Blake

10-16-2003, 11:39 AM

Do the Black Israelites believe the white man landed on the moon?

Martin Red

10-16-2003, 11:43 AM

Was the film called "Capricorn" ?

Great film. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

I was born the year of the moon landing graemlins/OLA.gif

D J 1 3 8

10-16-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Martin Red:
Was the film called "Capricorn" ?

Great film. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

I was born the year of the moon landing graemlins/OLA.gif Capricorn One

w/ my main man OJ Simpson, no less.

GROOVE VICTIM

10-16-2003, 11:55 AM

That was "Capricorn One".

So who believes that these space probes made fly bys over Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune?

dj c-los

10-16-2003, 12:02 PM

I'm in Houston and I can honestly say that i went to the Sapce Center and got on the tour of the old control station. Man, you look at that place and you're like...there is no way these machines here sent a gigantic rocket to the moon.
The tour guide said that home PC's are 100,000 times faster than the old computers used for the moon mission.
graemlins/conf44.gif

mhd

10-16-2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
That was "Capricorn One".

So who believes that these space probes made fly bys over Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune? i believe the one about the probe in uranus

kev

10-16-2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by mhd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
That was "Capricorn One".

So who believes that these space probes made fly bys over Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune? i believe the one about the probe in uranus [/QUOTE]Let the games begin!

D J 1 3 8

10-16-2003, 12:05 PM

If you think the moon landings were staged, I've got a brand new tin-foil hat with your name on it.

:tinfoilhat:

GROOVE VICTIM

10-16-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by clos7:
I'm in Houston and I can honestly say that i went to the Sapce Center and got on the tour of the old control station. Man, you look at that place and you're like...there is no way these machines here sent a gigantic rocket to the moon.
The tour guide said that home PC's are 100,000 times faster than the old computers used for the moon mission.
graemlins/conf44.gif The Voyager Space Probes' computers had power equivilent to Pocket Calculators that were made in the late 80s.

[ October 16, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: GROOVE VICTIM ]

GROOVE VICTIM

10-16-2003, 12:12 PM

Fletch

10-16-2003, 12:34 PM

Gus Grissom was one of the guys who died in Appollo 1 (fire during takeoff in 1966?). The conspiracy theory is that Gus was a hothead, who allegedly questioned the possibility/legitimacy/credibility of the moon conquest. In response, folks at NASA may have "ousted" him. Just a conspiracy theory.

DLow

10-16-2003, 12:43 PM

I'm not saying I believe the missions took place, but what is there to gain by staging them?

mhd

10-16-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Derrick:
I'm not saying I believe the missions took place, but what is there to gain by staging them? billions and billions of dollars, apologies to carl sagan

Nicholas

10-16-2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Derrick:
I'm not saying I believe the missions took place, but what is there to gain by staging them? Its all about the cold war baby.

djdub63

10-16-2003, 01:43 PM

http://www.orbyonline.com/backgrounds/man-on-the-moon.jpg

djdub63

10-16-2003, 01:44 PM

http://www.skyartstudio.com/PlanterPets/The%20Man%20in%20the%20moon.jpg

MyNia

10-16-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Nicholas:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Derrick:
I'm not saying I believe the missions took place, but what is there to gain by staging them? Its all about the cold war baby. [/QUOTE]I was watching CNN the other night and they were discussing why China's first astronaut is a big deal.

Javier Drada

10-16-2003, 02:20 PM

What I don't understand is, if we made it there once, then why have we never been back. Especially since todays technology is a hell of allot more advanced than way back then. Is that not enough to make you wonder... graemlins/conf44.gif

GROOVE VICTIM

10-16-2003, 02:23 PM

Because the last couple of presidents in office wanted to be like Kennedy and made deadlines on making it to Mars.

DLow

10-16-2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Because the last couple of presidents in office wanted to be like Kennedy and made deadlines on making it to Mars. If America had/has the opportunity to show the world how advanced it is in making numerous trips to the moon, America would have done it over and over again. The arrogance displayed and the illusions that have been cast throughout this country's history makes me think this way. graemlins/conf44.gif

And

10-16-2003, 02:33 PM

As far as this story goes, I like to maintain what I call a healthy suspension of belief and disbelief.
--
I do find it hilarious reading posts arguing for the landing. People seem incredibly passionate about it. graemlins/rofl.gif
---
Maybe ultimately I don't really care thaaaat much.

graemlins/conf44.gif

icon_rofl.gif

richierich

10-16-2003, 02:34 PM

Huey P. Freeman

10-16-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Do the Black Israelites believe the white man landed on the moon? Huh?????

GROOVE VICTIM

10-16-2003, 02:45 PM

You've yet to answer the question in regards to the Space Probes (MHD stay out of it LITERALLY).

Do you believe these missions to the various planets in our solar system are real?

Peace

Javier Drada

10-16-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Because the last couple of presidents in office wanted to be like Kennedy and made deadlines on making it to Mars. Yeah but thats not a Human Flight...

GROOVE VICTIM

10-16-2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Javier Drada:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Because the last couple of presidents in office wanted to be like Kennedy and made deadlines on making it to Mars. Yeah but thats not a Human Flight... [/QUOTE]Bush Sr. wanted a man on Mars by 2020.

mhd

10-16-2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
You've yet to answer the question in regards to the Space Probes (MHD stay out of it LITERALLY).

Do you believe these missions to the various planets in our solar system are real?

Peace stay out of what? uranus?

jimmymack-2000

10-16-2003, 03:04 PM

If you accept the fact that manned spaceflight has made it past the earth's atmosphere, why is it so hard to accept a lunar landing?

P.S. The shadows on the moon probably look strange (they look very crisp and clear to me) because the moon doesn't have the atmospheric distortion/interference the Earth has.

DOTSmusic

10-16-2003, 03:18 PM

NO!!!!! i don't believe we landed on the moon.

[ October 16, 2003, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: aLie ]

D J 1 3 8

10-16-2003, 03:23 PM

You should re-title this thread "Who here needs a shiny new tin-foil hat"

Sharp Eye Washington

10-16-2003, 03:24 PM

I don’t believe the moon landings were staged & I do believe that we have sent successful probes to other planets. The images sent from Mars were fantastic & what about the images of the asteroid crashing into Jupiter? Maybe I’m naïve in regards to space exploration but I do believe we have at the very least visited the moon.

Huey P. Freeman

10-16-2003, 03:38 PM

http://jukar.biostat.wisc.edu/pics/mar2.gif
Proof of life in outer space!

[ October 16, 2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Eargasm ]

mdpm99

10-16-2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Javier Drada:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Because the last couple of presidents in office wanted to be like Kennedy and made deadlines on making it to Mars. Yeah but thats not a Human Flight... [/QUOTE]Bush Sr. wanted a man on Mars by 2020. [/QUOTE]Good, maybe he could arrange to send his son and leave him there.....in the meantime there are more craters in Iraq then there are on the moon.......

d

[ October 16, 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

sammyrock

10-16-2003, 04:11 PM

Only when I take a Peyote... ;) smile.gif

ngeso

10-16-2003, 04:21 PM

Q: did columbus rilly rilly make it to the new world with a sextant, an abacus and a plumb bob? there's some serious overestimation of 3rd-millenium technology and serious underestimation of human imagination and will going on in this thread. as far as i'm concerned, they made it, but there's a bunch of cats out there trying to jive their asses to some dollars with some pop conspiracy.

how lawng, before i discover fire???

ngeso

10-16-2003, 04:23 PM

the thing about conspiracy theories is that they are based entirely on plausibilities - which means you can drape a conspiracy around damn near any fact.

ngeso

10-16-2003, 04:25 PM

and what is really funny, is that most of the people that fall for conspiracy theories are likely to believe in g*d - the single biggest plausibility in the history of mankind ever.

jimmymack-2000

10-16-2003, 04:28 PM

Ngeso on point as usual...

And

10-16-2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by ngeso:
the thing about conspiracy theories is that they are based entirely on plausibilities - which means you can drape a conspiracy around damn near any fact. "Fact" 'cause one chooses to believe it so?
--
One of the definitions of plausible:

plau·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plôz-bl)
adj.
Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
-----
So what's the issue? We all have plausible reasons for believing what we believe ... including God.

ngeso

10-16-2003, 04:46 PM

And

10-16-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by ngeso:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 6 23:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ngeso:
the thing about conspiracy theories is that they are based entirely on plausibilities - which means you can drape a conspiracy around damn near any fact. "Fact" 'cause one chooses to believe it so?
--
One of the definitions of plausible:

plau·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plôz-bl)
adj.
Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
-----
So what's the issue? We all have plausible reasons for believing what we believe ... including God. [/QUOTE]like many people, i consider the idea of the moon landing as being a staged piece of theatre a tempting thought. but i can't get my head around the idea that literally thousands of people in Houston, at Kennedy, in Washington, in the newsrooms, and in postions of power and know - required to pull this off - would have all kept stumm on a propagated lie.

maybe i lack imagination. [/QUOTE]When I think of sealed documents involving the landing ... sealed up until 2050 or so I wonder why wait so long? What's so secret? and what about the freedom of information act (?).
---
Perhaps I have too much imagination ...
--
Healthy suspension of belief and disbelief .. ;)

ngeso

10-16-2003, 05:11 PM

i know, i know - it's just that in my world people can keep a secret for about 3 minutes, and then the sh*t is OUT (they inevitably find out everything every time...) assuming that the whole moon-landing "giant step for mankind" thing was a hoax......

.....what the hell did they pay people to play along??? they had death warrants on everybody's moms or something???

jimmymack-2000

10-16-2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by 6 23:
When I think of sealed documents involving the landing ... sealed up until 2050 or so I wonder why wait so long? What's so secret? and what about the freedom of information act (?).
Just curious, where did you get this information from? The FOIA should apply to any material generated by the Apollo program, just like any other government venture...

muel

10-16-2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by DJ 138:
You should re-title this thread "Who here needs a shiny new tin-foil hat" graemlins/rofl.gif

KragShot

10-16-2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Javier Drada:
What I don't understand is, if we made it there once, then why have we never been back. Especially since todays technology is a hell of allot more advanced than way back then. Is that not enough to make you wonder... graemlins/conf44.gif That's simple.

While we have the technology to go there, we do not have the technology to stay...at least for any period of time that would be worth anything.

The only reasons that we would have for returning to the moon would be either economic or military. In other words, we would either mine it or we'd put a weapons platform on it, if not both.

We've had the knowledge to build mass drivers (a device that uses magnetic propulsion to hurl a payload) for years. Once we've gotten the bugs out of superconductivty, they will build them.

The biggest hangup is the knowledge of space construction and advanced materials. That's why the International Space Station is being built (wait...don't tell me that some of you don't believe it's being built either....). They are trying out techniques there.

As for the space flights, I know that they are real. I've seen two shuttle launches in person.

Now, let's look at this logically.

Premise #1:
It is an established fact that we have equipment that can allow people to exist in hostile environments, including vacuum (i.e. deep sea diving gear, hazardous survival equipment, etc...) and we have had this gear for quite some time (at least a good portion of my 38 years of life). Divers, firemen, and HAZ-MAT workers use them all the time. In addition, we've had vehicles that can exist in those hostile environments even before WWII (submarines, diving bells, bathespheres, DSVs, etc....).

Premise #2:
We have manned flight and and guided missiles. I'm sure that a substantial portion of this list membership (more than 65%) has flown in a jet.
Of the members of this list in the military, those with combat MOS's have seen guided missile weapons used. Furthermore it is a fact that we have had access to guided missile technology since WWI. In other words, we have the technology to propel a payload using rocket or jet technology (jets require atmospheric oxygen as a part of its propellant, while a rocket's propellant is included in its makeup- which is why they can function in a vacuum). Rockets work. Anyone involved in the model rocketry hobby (like I am) can tell you so.

Conclusion:
Therefore, there is no technical reason that we could not have placed a manned vehicle into space. The technology exists and has existed well before the moon shots.

Now. I need to be straight on something.

Are the nay-sayers saying that:

1) we have never launched anyone into space.

2) humans have been in space but they haven't been to the moon.

3) not only have we never launched anyone into space or been to the moon, that we cannot and never have been able to do so.

Now, of course somebody will say;

"Just because we have the technolgy, doesn't mean that they did it."

I can't answer that one.

There is no defense or offense against a mind that is solidly determined not to see a certain point of view...short of old fashioned brainwashing techniques.

In otherwords, I can drag you into a cell, beat, torture and mind-rape you until a time when I'll show you three lights, I'll tell you that you see five and you'll agree with me that you see five and believe that you see five.

But, I know old people who don't believe in airplanes; they also think that satellite TV is a hoax, and that there is no such thing as the Internet.

Go figure....

KragShot

ngeso

10-16-2003, 05:57 PM

the chinese were first in space. like...uhm...just yesterday? graemlins/rofl.gif

DOTSmusic

10-16-2003, 06:13 PM

i believe we have sent astronauts into outerspace, just not to the moon.

and if we did send man to the moon, where the fvck are the real pictures and footage of this so called event? obviously the ones that were released to the public are fraudulent.

Mah'chew

10-16-2003, 06:17 PM

It was staged, we have more computing power in a pocket calculator than was in that landing module.

jimmymack-2000

10-16-2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by aLie:
obviously the ones that were released to the public are fraudulent. What do you mean "fraudulent"? I've read the supposed "evidence" that disproves the photos from the moon, and it's about as conclusive as the evidence that God or the Devil or ghosts or fairies exist...

jimmymack-2000

10-16-2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Mah'chew:
It was staged, we have more computing power in a pocket calculator than was in that landing module. Ever hear of a slide rule? All the variables and parameters for space flight were calculated and laid down long in advance of the mission back then...

Mah'chew

10-16-2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mah'chew:
It was staged, we have more computing power in a pocket calculator than was in that landing module. Ever hear of a slide rule? All the variables and parameters for space flight were calculated and laid down long in advance of the mission back then... [/QUOTE]What about the margin for error in acheiving an orbit around the moon? This is still baffling people today - why do you think no one's been up there since? The Arabs or China with all their money could have gone years ago and we're still having problems with the re-entry of plane type vessel from a sub-orbit around our own planet (The Shuttle) - come on, it's Uncle Scam's biggest P.R. trick of the 60's

DOTSmusic

10-16-2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by aLie:
obviously the ones that were released to the public are fraudulent. What do you mean "fraudulent"? I've read the supposed "evidence" that disproves the photos from the moon, and it's about as conclusive as the evidence that God or the Devil or ghosts or fairies exist... [/QUOTE]but have you seen the movie though? icon_rofl.gif

jimmymack-2000

10-16-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Mah'chew:
What about the margin for error in acheiving an orbit around the moon? This is still baffling people today - why do you think no one's been up there since? The Arabs or China with all their money could have gone years ago and we're still having problems with the re-entry of plane type vessel from a sub-orbit around our own planet (The Shuttle) - come on, it's Uncle Scam's biggest P.R. trick of the 60's Actually, the margin of error in making moon orbit is quite large. Since the moon has relatively little mass, gravitational pull isn't really a factor: rather, the lack of it is. The main challenges are getting the approach speed and angle of incidence right to avoid collision with the moon. Don't forget that the Apollo module had thrusters, which would allow corrections in approach and AOI to be made in "real time."

EDIT: Change small margin of error to large...

[ October 16, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: jimmymack-2000 ]

jimmymack-2000

10-16-2003, 07:03 PM

Oh bugger!

[ October 16, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: jimmymack-2000 ]

King Vitamin

10-17-2003, 03:24 AM

i've read about this subject before, and there is a conspiracy, but it's about whether or not we landed on the moon because we did.

at the time though our motion picture technology wasn't advanced enough to even work in outer space, its too damn cold, and the government knew this before they even launched, so beleive it or nor, they hired(actually made him do it because his brother was communist supporter)Stanley Kubrick. they built the studio in Huntsville, Al.

the government supplied him with special effects that at the time were never used in film. this is where he got the technology for the film "2001, A Space Oddysee", this is also the time that he decided to move to the U.K. and never left his estate until his death

so the footage that we all know, was actually a film made by stanley kubrick

now you ask why?

to take the american peoples attention away from vietnam

pretty slick, if you ask me

GROOVE VICTIM

10-17-2003, 06:47 AM

yaaddaa yaaaddaaaa yaaaaddaaaa

Everyone knows that when the first astronauts landed on the moon, the initial images came from a studio mock up of the lander, it looked fake as Pamala Anderson's chest.

Getting back to the question at hand, if you believe that we did not land on the moon, what about the Space Probes and the images they sent back to us? What about the Sojourner Rover that landed on Mars in the mid 90s?

Peace

[ October 17, 2003, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: GROOVE VICTIM ]

10-17-2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by jmpayne:
i've read about this subject before, and there is a conspiracy, but it's about whether or not we landed on the moon because we did.
huh?! Could you clarify this statement?

sammyrock

10-17-2003, 07:42 AM

There is NO SPOON.. :D

King Vitamin

10-17-2003, 08:25 AM

thanks sammyrock, give him the fork, and pass the butter baby

by the way, astronauts would have to deal with the tremendous amount of radiation that surrounds the moon, which it does have because the moon has no atmosphere. that would be impossible, also the space suits were so pressurized that it would be impossible to bend any joint, including fingers

Bill Blake

10-17-2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by 6 23:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ngeso:
the thing about conspiracy theories is that they are based entirely on plausibilities - which means you can drape a conspiracy around damn near any fact. "Fact" 'cause one chooses to believe it so?
--
One of the definitions of plausible:

plau·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plôz-bl)
adj.
Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
-----
So what's the issue? We all have plausible reasons for believing what we believe ... including God. [/QUOTE]That’s the good thing about facts. They are what they are regardless of what you choose or not.

You can choose to disregard facts like refusing to believe that if you jump off a cliff you wont fall and have your brains splattered all over the rocks below, but when you jump, that’s what is gonna happen whether you believe it or not.

Notice how in your definition the key phrase is ‘apparently valid’, valid being a term that applies to logic. A belief in God, in any way shape or form does not. It can only be a belief based on the epistemology of Faith, which means to believe, absence of FACTS.

It doesn’t mean that you can’t believe in God, it just means that God exist or does not regardless of what you believe and what you believe is based on no factual evidence what so ever.

The question is what are the criteria you use to formulate your beliefs. Ngeso, has given a ‘plausible’ argument as to why this conspiracy seems absurd by pointing out that it is unlikely that a conspiracy could have so many collaborators given the space program.

And you have not refuted it.

jimmymack-2000

10-17-2003, 08:51 AM

That's the other thing about logic: there is no burden of proof, only the burden of disproof. In other words, a statement is valid until it is proven not to be valid.

Bill Blake

10-17-2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
That's the other thing about logic: there is no burden of proof, only the burden of disproof. In other words, a statement is valid until it is proven not to be valid. Such a lovely science it is.

This site isnt too bad for brushing up on some of your inductive logic skilz
inductive (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php)

mdpm99

10-17-2003, 09:20 AM

Well, when in doubt........

Fly Me To The Moon......Gloria Lynn

Fly Me To The Moon......Arthur Prysock

smile.gif

d

Ps.

During the late sixties in the East Village we use
to do "street theater" so to speak. When the Tourist buses would come down Saint Marks Place we would (about 30-40 of us) politely MOON the tourists. Now that is a fact! And yes, it was staged of course.

**********

What can reach the end of the Universe faster than the speed of light?

Your imagination!

[ October 17, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

mdpm99

10-17-2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
That's the other thing about logic: there is no burden of proof, only the burden of disproof. In other words, a statement is valid until it is proven not to be valid. Such a lovely science it is.

This site isnt too bad for brushing up on some of your inductive logic skilz
inductive (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php) [/QUOTE]Greetings Jamie

Reminds me of the movie CONTACT.