Did we Land On The Moon ? 8pm channel 5

[beorhthelm]

Not true actually. The developed world has never believed the world was flat, most people thought it was either a spherical oblong or spherical. Just as some people don't believe it was possible to get to the moon in 1969 few people thought it was possible to sail oceans, but they found the technology and they sailed, mapping out our world. It's a mad, mad, mad,mad,mad,mad,mad,mad,mad,mad,mad,mad,mad,mad world.

just as then, the uneducated held on to beliefs given by others who where uneducated and preyed on ignorane to establish themselves as having special knowledge. ironic really that they should claim thers ridicule of science when it is they that ignore science, believing individuals with "alternative" ideas over the knowledge of 99% other experts.

 

[Nibble]

just as then, the uneducated held on to beliefs given by others who where uneducated and preyed on ignorane to establish themselves as having special knowledge. ironic really that they should claim thers ridicule of science when it is they that ignore science, believing individuals with "alternative" ideas over the knowledge of 99% other experts.

It's ironic that they act just like the institutions they claim to despise ie "Believe in what we are saying or be branded a blind fool who will suffer come the endgame". There will always be people who fall for this tripe, always a differet theory round the bend be it Illuminati or fake moon landings or some other discombobulated hokum. Meanwhile true science abides and makes it advances, improving the lives of us all.

Dingodan is not expalining himself very well I can't fathom if he is railing against science or for it? Does he believe we landed on the moon? What a mess.

 

[Jim D]

Does anybody think there could be aliens on the moon and it's just a massive cover up by NASA also might explain why no one has been back to the moon in 40 years ( maybe they struck a deal with the yanks you leave our moon and we will never invade planet earth )

I'm not talking about living on the surface but in underground caves

Of course there are - who do you think removed that Lancaster Bomber?

 

[Triggaaar]

Lol. Go on then, explain the shadows

1) Light reflects off the objects that are there (the rocks, the craters, the lunar module, the astronauts. 2) In the small photos shown, the different shaped rocks produce misleading shadows, that make it look like the light is coming from a different direction. 3) If they were faking it on earth, wouldn't it have been easier to use one light? They're not idiots.

lack of blast creator

Didn't see that bit, sounds dull.

wavey flag

Flags wouldn't wave indefinitely on the moon, as the material rubs against itself it will slow down to a stop.

the same landscape but 24 hours later and supposedly a different place

A mistake in the editing, where they put a piece of footage with day 2, but should have been with day 1. Easier to believe than going to all that effort of faking a mission and not bothering to use different locations.

AND...
Even if they had faked the footage, that wouldn't mean the landings themselves were faked.

Evidence from that program that it was faked:
A Russian cosmonaut has broken silence, and said 'we were worried about the radiation getting into the spacecraft'. Wow.
He didn't say it would, or that it would be a high level of radiation, he actually undermined the rest of the crap on the program that said the radiation would kill a man.

 

[dingodan]

Handed down? Dear lord. It's hardly bigotry is it? I believe we landed on the moon based on the evidence. Now, if I were to meet someone who didn't believe in it I would take their ideas on board, I won't agree with them but yeah okay, it's a widely held theory. If that person were then to go on to describe their belief in every half arsed, ill conceived, crackpot conspiracy theory going then I would switch off. People like you and The Truth subscribe to any piece of crap you find on the internet and it doesn't inspire confidence in your opinions. If you think tha's bigoted you're, well you're wrong.

Read the post I originally responded to. By sn00k. I was not saying you were being that way, I was talking about the posts involving magic beans etc, these are not sound challenges to anything. They are a phenomenon of psychology like any reactionary prejudiced expression. Not everyone behaves this way, but plenty on here do.

You have no idea what I believe, or why. There was a time when I would make an effort to explain, but the response here is overwhelmingly as described above. You guys ask for facts, but when those facts conflict with your own beliefs, and when you are unwilling or unable to abandon them, then the discussion just becomes defensive and eventually aggressive.

I guess the same could be said of some "conspiracy theorists" etc, although actually in my experience "conspiracy theorists" tend to have gone through a process of being disabused of things they once believed. In my experience, they actually tend to be more objective, more open-minded, and more mindful of their own prejudices and psychology than other people.

As an example, you band these terms around, "half arsed, ill conceived, crackpot conspiracy theory", "any piece of crap you find on the internet", but these are not challenges to anything I have said. What this means is that, a) because of generalizations you have made about me personally, you can say b) I am wrong, c) without checking any facts.

It's not actually your conclusions I have a problem with, we can disagree and both remain dignified. What I object to are your intellectual methods. They suck major balls.

 

[dingodan]

I think you may have taken my post the wrong way matey.

Where you not being serious?

Sorry if you were not.

 

[Max Paper]

1) Light reflects off the objects that are there (the rocks, the craters, the lunar module, the astronauts. 2) In the small photos shown, the different shaped rocks produce misleading shadows, that make it look like the light is coming from a different direction. 3) If they were faking it on earth, wouldn't it have been easier to use one light? They're not idiots.

Didn't see that bit, sounds dull.
Flags wouldn't wave indefinitely on the moon, as the material rubs against itself it will slow down to a stop.
A mistake in the editing, where they put a piece of footage with day 2, but should have been with day 1. Easier to believe than going to all that effort of faking a mission and not bothering to use different locations.

AND...
Even if they had faked the footage, that wouldn't mean the landings themselves were faked.

Evidence from that program that it was faked:
A Russian cosmonaut has broken silence, and said 'we were worried about the radiation getting into the spacecraft'. Wow.
He didn't say it would, or that it would be a high level of radiation, he actually undermined the rest of the crap on the program that said the radiation would kill a man.

That's a pretty good attempt ill give you that! The blast crater....
The moon surface is covered by a fine dust, this you can see from the footage of the blokes jumping about/footprints etc.
If you simply blow on a pile of dust it will move. When you have an engine thrusting Christ knows how much power at the moons surface upon landing you are going to create a fairly large hole/crater. Look at the photos, f*** all! Listen I have never for one minute doubted we landed on the moon but after watching that, it does seem like an elaborate hoax!

 

[Pavilionaire]

I watched a programme all about Apollo 17 landing on the moon 3 years later. Was that mission a fake too?

 

[Triggaaar]

The moon surface is covered by a fine dust, this you can see from the footage of the blokes jumping about/footprints etc.

Ok, but how deep is the dust, a few inches?

If you simply blow on a pile of dust it will move. When you have an engine thrusting Christ knows how much power at the moons surface upon landing you are going to create a fairly large hole/crater.

Wide maybe, but still only a few inches deep. If that was faked though, we're still only talking about footage.

I have never for one minute doubted we landed on the moon but after watching that, it does seem like an elaborate hoax!

That program was so biased it was embarrassing. From people saying that any man would die if not behind feet of lead, while a Russian said that they were concerned about radiation (ie, it was something to factor in), to the fact that the Russians were watching the whole thing unfold (if the US didn't land, the Russians would have said), to the fact that signals are sent to the reflectors they installed every single day (measuring the distance of the moon from earth - it's moving away from us).

The suggestion that they never landed is completely mental.

Oh - PS, if y9ou had 2 light sources for the photos, the shadows wouldn't just be in different directions, there would be multiple shadows. Like when watching footy and you have floodlights, players have multiple shadows.

 

[T soprano]

I watched a programme all about Apollo 17 landing on the moon 3 years later. Was that mission a fake too?

In a nutshell, yes

 

[Nibble]

Read the post I originally responded to. By sn00k. I was not saying you were being that way, I was talking about the posts involving magic beans etc, these are not sound challenges to anything. They are a phenomenon of psychology like any reactionary prejudiced expression. Not everyone behaves this way, but plenty on here do.

You have no idea what I believe, or why. There was a time when I would make an effort to explain, but the response here is overwhelmingly as described above. You guys ask for facts, but when those facts conflict with your own beliefs, and when you are unwilling or unable to abandon them, then the discussion just becomes defensive and eventually aggressive.

I guess the same could be said of some "conspiracy theorists" etc, although actually in my experience "conspiracy theorists" tend to have gone through a process of being disabused of things they once believed. In my experience, they actually tend to be more objective, more open-minded, and more mindful of their own prejudices and psychology than other people.

As an example, you band these terms around, "half arsed, ill conceived, crackpot conspiracy theory", "any piece of crap you find on the internet", but these are not challenges to anything I have said. What this means is that, a) because of generalizations you have made about me personally, you can say b) I am wrong, c) without checking any facts.

It's not actually your conclusions I have a problem with, we can disagree and both remain dignified. What I object to are your intellectual methods. They suck major balls.

Yes, I 'll give you that, you have calmed down a bit since you first started spouting nonsense on here. For the record, I have challenged what you've said, quite succesfuly I might add. I will happily challenge any of this stuff and will happily label it half arsed when I have finished challeenging it.

 

[Nibble]

Read the post I originally responded to. By sn00k. I was not saying you were being that way, I was talking about the posts involving magic beans etc, these are not sound challenges to anything. They are a phenomenon of psychology like any reactionary prejudiced expression. Not everyone behaves this way, but plenty on here do.

You have no idea what I believe, or why. There was a time when I would make an effort to explain, but the response here is overwhelmingly as described above. You guys ask for facts, but when those facts conflict with your own beliefs, and when you are unwilling or unable to abandon them, then the discussion just becomes defensive and eventually aggressive.

I guess the same could be said of some "conspiracy theorists" etc, although actually in my experience "conspiracy theorists" tend to have gone through a process of being disabused of things they once believed. In my experience, they actually tend to be more objective, more open-minded, and more mindful of their own prejudices and psychology than other people.

As an example, you band these terms around, "half arsed, ill conceived, crackpot conspiracy theory", "any piece of crap you find on the internet", but these are not challenges to anything I have said. What this means is that, a) because of generalizations you have made about me personally, you can say b) I am wrong, c) without checking any facts.

It's not actually your conclusions I have a problem with, we can disagree and both remain dignified. What I object to are your intellectual methods. They suck major balls.

That genuinely made me laugh.

 

[Nibble]

That's a pretty good attempt ill give you that! The blast crater....
The moon surface is covered by a fine dust, this you can see from the footage of the blokes jumping about/footprints etc.
If you simply blow on a pile of dust it will move. When you have an engine thrusting Christ knows how much power at the moons surface upon landing you are going to create a fairly large hole/crater. Look at the photos, f*** all! Listen I have never for one minute doubted we landed on the moon but after watching that, it does seem like an elaborate hoax!

Didn't they switch all the blast engines off and drift onto the moon surface though? So far as I know, every single query about the moon landings has been addressed quite satisfactoraly to the point that NASA now can't even be bothered to keep refuting and have basically said "Believe what you want, we've got better things to be doing with our time" and frankly, I agree with them.

 

[dingodan]

just as then, the uneducated held on to beliefs given by others who where uneducated and preyed on ignorane to establish themselves as having special knowledge. ironic really that they should claim thers ridicule of science when it is they that ignore science, believing individuals with "alternative" ideas over the knowledge of 99% other experts.

That is not so true. In large part the preying on the ignorance of the uneducated was done by the educated. Knowledge of the seasons was translated into mystical insight to con the farmer into paying to find out when to sow his seed. Knowledge about nature and the Universe was either suppressed or rejected because it conflicted with the dominant religious ideology and threatened the power of individuals and institutions.

These were cases of incorrect belief systems which were prescribed and defended from above by the educated and knowledgeable classes.

 

[pastafarian]

That is not so true. In large part the preying on the ignorance of the uneducated was done by the educated. Knowledge of the seasons was translated into mystical insight to con the farmer into paying to find out when to sow his seed. Knowledge about nature and the Universe was either suppressed or rejected because it conflicted with the dominant religious ideology and threatened the power of individuals and institutions.

These were cases of incorrect belief systems which were prescribed and defended from above by the educated and knowledgeable classes.

but were these so called educated not really educated at all?........by modern standards anyway

 

[dingodan]

but were these so called educated not really educated at all?........by modern standards anyway

How educated are we?........by future standards anyway........

The truth was there to be known to them, some would have known it but kept it secret, but largely they would have been prejudiced by their existing beliefs, what they were taught, and they would have likely been trusting of the other "99% of experts" at the time.

Historically, scientific understanding has only ever really been held back by the challenge people have in accepting that what they had previously believed, was wrong.

Science, when done correctly, is a humbling endeavor. The more you find out, the less you know.

 

[pastafarian]

How educated are we?........by future standards anyway........

The truth was there to be known to them, some would have known it but kept it secret, but largely they would have been prejudiced by their existing beliefs, what they were taught, and they would have likely been trusting of the other "99% of experts" at the time.

Historically, scientific understanding has only ever really been held back by the challenge people have in accepting that what they had previously believed, was wrong.

Science, when done correctly, is a humbling endeavor. The more you find out, the less you know.

and this is why we probably disagree with each other on so many issues

you seem to be a half glass empty sort of person


i will always believe the more you find out,the more you know!

 

[T soprano]

This is getting very heavy anyone got any jokes

 

[SeagullSongs]

Lol. Go on then, explain the shadows, lack of blast creator, wavey flag, the same landscape but 24 hours later and supposedly a different place and the rest of it?

The shadows can be explained by watching the mythbusters link I posted, it's all to do with the topography.
Blast crater? Why should there be a blast crater? It wasn't a bloody bomb they set off (although they did set off some explosives in the later lunar missions to test seismological instruments). The lunar surface is rocky with a thin layer of dust.
The flag was rigged with string and things to cause it to wave. Also, any movement given to the flag by the astronauts would last much longer than on Earth due to the lack of resistance from the air.
The same landscape? It was probably different... Try standing in one place in the middle of the Sahara desert, for example, travel 100 miles and it will probably look pretty damn similar.

Even if you only need one piece of evidence to prove that man went to the moon, WE HAVE THAT ONE PIECE. The astronauts left behind a reflector that will direct any light striking it back to its source. This reflector is used by firing lasers at it from Earth to measure the distance between the Earth and the moon. The lasers wouldn't be reflected back with such an intensity if there wasn't a reflector left there.
And why, after all these years, have the Russians not once tried to claim that it was all a hoax? Because they TRACKED THE APOLLO MISSIONS all the way to the moon.

and this is why we probably disagree with each other on so many issues

you seem to be a half glass empty sort of person


i will always believe the more you find out,the more you know!

The more you find out, the more you know, but the less you feel like you know, because more problems and questions are unearthed!

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Man landed on the Moon-if you don't believe it then you can question you very own existence-are you real or just make believe?