QOTD: Do You Think Moon Landing Was Faked?

[Luscious]

Another slow news day at the McEntegert's?

Yes, your QOTD did generate reader feedback, but only because your question is more in line with something an Alex Jones protagonist would suggest. Feeding the trolls is one thing, and providing IT news is another. I prefer to come to Tom's for the latter.

Jane, they have an opening for you at infowars...

 

[mdillenbeck]

Answer to QOTD: No. Anyone who believes it was faked when presented with the tomes of evidence to the contrary is obviously irrational, and thus will never accept evidence to the contrary. To them, the moon landing being fakes is closer to religious belief than scientific fact.

 

[Glorian]

I find it extremely hard to believe that of the thousands of people involved could keep a secret, when one intern can't keep one.

we haven't gone back because the novelty is over. I live in San Antonio and I never just go see the Alamo cause I feel like it, I went for the first time as a field trip and maybe a couple times more cause friends from out of town wanted to see it. I mean i might eventually go again under certain circumstances, just like we are planning to go to the moon again.

 

[Guest]

Nope.

If you want some proof just go look at the latest pics from the last few probes that have flown to the moon, from both nasa and india, both have photographed the landing sites. Pictures can be faked sure, and if you believe the the lasted probe pics are also fake....well there is nothing that will convince you.

The waving flag thing is just a load of crap. Its not waving, its bouncing on its flimsy metal frame. With no air to dampen the vibratio it will bounce a long time after they let go of it before it finally quiets down.

The no stars in the sky is because of the type of cameras and exposures they used. You wouldnt expect any.

The dual shadow from a single lightsource complaint is also bs. Depending on the layout of the terrain you can certainly have dual shadows from a single lightsource.

You cant PROVE that they actually went there, short of going there yourself. But you can PROVE that all the garbage arguments the consipiracy nuts make are a non issue.

 

[xpont8]

haha! nice question.. brings out a lot of reasonings. each has their evidences (some even did their homework. lol!).

i just wonder why would cris angel do all those seems to be magical tricks? do you get what i'm saying?

but i think i believe that man landed on the moon.. the second time. haha!

 

[okibrian]

We landed on the moon already! Get over it and move on! Watch mythbusters and remember, we were in a space race back then. Russia and many others tracked us all the way to the moon and back just itching to call bull shit. If we never landed Russia would have let all know 10 seconds after we made the claim. Really, this has gone on too long.

 

[jsc]

No.

 

[Robert17]

Of course not. I talked to Elvis while walking around the edge of the flat Earth last week, Buddy Holly squinting at Spock, and Elvis said absolutely no moon landing. Ya gotta believe Elvis!

 

[eddieroolz]

A firm no.

 

[Guest]

I think it was faked.
I'll give three reasons:
1) No other country has been there, including the Russians.
2) The tape got "taped" over, yeah I'm sure it was an accident...
3) If it was done in 1969, don't you think we would be able to get back right now? Not in 2020, if they even keep that on schedule. Heck, pull the behemoth retired space shuttles back and launch one of those, just to prove that we did go.

 

[jimmysad]

well if they did it 40 years ago, dont you think they would constantly go back and forth landing people on the moon with some LIVE footage? i mean why not, they did it 40 years ago, it should be a breeze to do it now. i saw something on discovery channel that next moon landing is slated for 2020...i mean why so far away. NASA should have conquered moon landing by now, dug for gold and oil by now, and landed on Mars by now. They should have had the enthusiasm they had 40 years ago and raced to be first to dig the Moon and land on Mars.

 

[jimmysad]

i saw the mythbusters show. but think of it like this...if the footage was fake, then it was faked on Earth at 'Area 51' or wherever. Mythbusters tried to bust that Myth by doing the test on Earth....there would be exact same results. If it was faked, then Mythbusters just proved that it never happened. How can we really know unless we get live footage? WHY DON'T we Get LIVE footage from moon? Happened 40 years ago, why not in next couple of years?

 

[imrul]

It was real.

 

[okibrian]

[citation][nom]kayaker3057[/nom]I think it was faked.I'll give three reasons:1) No other country has been there, including the Russians.2) The tape got "taped" over, yeah I'm sure it was an accident...3) If it was done in 1969, don't you think we would be able to get back right now? Not in 2020, if they even keep that on schedule. Heck, pull the behemoth retired space shuttles back and launch one of those, just to prove that we did go.[/citation]

1.) Yes, but as I already said Russia and many others tracked us all the way to the moon and back just itching to call bull shit. Why have they not? Is Russia in on it too? I really don’t think they would like us to look better than them.
2.) Yes it got taped over, and that was dumb as hell, but we have all seen the footage already. You want to see it just google it.
3.) We flew rockets back then with landing capsules. We currently have none of those active and we only have space shuttles now. We lack runways on the moon to land them and with the gravity what it is on the moon that shuttle will take a LOOOONG time to stop. We have to build a new fleet to take us back to the moon and rocket science is not done as fast or as cheap as you may think. One slip and boom! Really, we have not been to the moon in many years, but we and many other countries have been building a space station. Do you think that was child’s play? Maybe we have not bounced a capsule on the moons’ surface in some time; we docked countless shuttles with fractions of an inch of precision.

 

[hemelskonijn]

Seriously okibrian,

1. The Russians called bullshit for a long time though since they where red why would you guys trust them ?, (they only stopped calling it bullshit some time after the Berlin wall came down and the cold war was over).

2. We all saw the copy's of copy's meaning that by now any blib in the clip can be flipped around as a result of anything related to the copy process the storage medium and or how many times it has been copied.

3. You made a near useless remark since it is indeed to hard to land a space shuttle on the moon but they could just go back to landing capsules and rockets if that's the only thing stopping us.

For every reason con is one pro and vice versa ... however "Those who do not believe in miracles are no realists".

 

[okibrian]

[citation][nom]hemelskonijn[/nom]3. You made a near useless remark since it is indeed to hard to land a space shuttle on the moon but they could just go back to landing capsules and rockets if that's the only thing stopping us.For every reason con is one pro and vice versa ... however "Those who do not believe in miracles are no realists".[/citation]

Nope, you clearly just lack comprehension.

 

[hemelskonijn]

okibrian:

How do i lack comprehension ?
You where the one explaining it can be done will be done and has been done with good old rockets and capsules.
Your reason why we don't do those things today is because we no longer have active rockets and nor do we currently build them (well except for the one that will go up in 2020).

In stead of posting i lack comprehension you could just explain it to me or at least try.
How sad that even those who do write good posts cant handle critique.

 

[Guest]

of course we landed on the moon and people who can't accept that just can't accept that we are capable of parting from our little blue planet (this is also the group of people that still think the world is flat mind you). But it is seriously offensive to all the people who risked their lives in the entire program to suggest that NASA just faked it and somehow so many people have been killed.

 

[okibrian]

I cannot explain nothing new to you that you already don't want to believe. I guess we should just spend tax dollars to do it over and over each time we have a non-believer. I mean these rocket things only cost a few bucks, right? I think I can find one on ebay.
"How sad that even those who do write good posts cant handle critique." Boy, ain't that the truth.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23Feb_2.htm

 

[okibrian]

[citation][nom]hemelskonijn[/nom] You made a near useless remark since it is indeed to hard to land a space shuttle on the moon but they could just go back to landing capsules and rockets if that's the only thing stopping us.For every reason con is one pro and vice versa ... however "Those who do not believe in miracles are no realists".[/citation]
This is the kind of thinking that I am talking about when I say spend more tax dollars on non-believers. And again, they take lots of TIME and MONEY to build. Did you not read where NASA is going to splash the space station in 2016 because of funds? Our shuttle fleet was set to be trashed many years ago and replaced, but was not due to funds. But we should just spend the money because hemelskonijn does not believe.

 

[hemelskonijn]

okibrian:

"I cannot explain nothing new to you that you already don't want to believe."

So you gave up on me ?, i never said anything about my personal opinions as opposed to believing or not believing i merely stated my opinion on if it could or could not be faked as a reaction to your reply to kayaker3057.

 

[momcilosystem]

I don't know if it's fake or not, I just want to know how do they lift from Moon. I mean if Moon's gravity is nine times lower than Earth's then by simplyfing it should take nine times less fuel - which is still reaaally big amount of fuel, but you can't see it on their craft... Please clarify

 

[okibrian]

Yes, I gave up on you. Have a good one.

 

[hemelskonijn]

momcilosystem:

I think you over simplify it or don't simplify it enough which ever you prefer.
If the gravity is nine times lower then that on earth you should take in account that the range of the gravity field is also a lot shorter meaning it would take a lot less to lift off but also a lot less to get out of the gravity field combined it would make it possible to do be done with even less then nine times the fuel needed for liftoff from earth.

 

[hemelskonijn]

edit:

momcilosystem:

I think you over simplify it or don't simplify it enough which ever you prefer.
If the gravity is nine times lower then that on earth you should take in account that the range of the gravity field is also a lot shorter meaning it would take a lot less to lift off but also a lot less to get out of the gravity field combined it would make it possible to do be done with even less one 9th of the fuel needed for liftoff from earth.