Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Man on the Moon...?

Did we land a Man on the Moon July 20th 1969

  • Total voters
    225
  • Poll closed .
norseclone said:
The problem with this is it's a huge logical fallacy (specifically, the argument from personal incredulity). However, just because you can't imagine or understand something doesn't mean it's not true. It truly was an amazing, Herculean effort. But just because the technology was less advanced doesn't mean it wasn't sufficient to pull it off. The construction of the pyramids (not to mention lining them up so that their faces face the four cardinal directions) would be a huge technological achievement today. The construction of Stonehenge included the transport and erection of stones that weighed 20-25 tons and was completed by roughly 2000 BC. These are incredible accomplishments, and we still don't know how they pulled off parts of it (as far as I know). But there they are (and no, the aliens didn't help them).
There's no problem viewing something as awe-inspiring as the moon loading with a healthy dose of skepticism, but after a careful review of the evidence, the conclusion is pretty clear. There's the existence of retroreflectors (the mirrors mentioned in an earlier post), the moon rocks and dust collected, the independent observations of other countries and agencies (the Russians specifically, who would have had the greatest motivation to prove the reality of a hoax), and the subsequent photos and videos of the landing site by NASA and other space agencies. In addition, there's the complete and thorough debunking of all of the theories espoused by the hoax proponents. It's all there as public record and easy to access.
Click to expand...

I only read your first line. You asked me why I don't believe it, and I told you why I don't. Plain and simple. I am not trying to convince anyone to change their minds and I am not going to engage because you want to spout fallacies.

I also saw that most of what you wrote is a copy and paste exercise from Wikipedia....
 
mplscyclone said:
I only read your first line. You asked me why I don't believe it, and I told you why I don't. Plain and simple. I am not trying to convince anyone to change their minds and I am not going to engage because you want to spout fallacies.

I also saw that most of what you wrote is a copy and paste exercise from Wikipedia....
Click to expand...

Do you want to post a link to a Wikipedia article that the man would have copied and pasted from, because I believe that you are just plain lying in that sentence.
 
CycloneErik said:
Do you want to post a link to a Wikipedia article that the man would have copied and pasted from, because I believe that you are just plain lying in that sentence.
Click to expand...

He's partially correct. I was planning on bringing up the mirrors, the independent observations of the Russians (kind of mentioned previously), and the subsequent pictures (specifically, I wanted to bring up the pictures taken in the last few weeks by the LRO, but I couldn't find anything that said they had been to that area, the pictures are amazing however, worth a look). I went searching for what the mirrors were actually called. That article also mentioned moon rocks, so I threw that in there. So apparently, I wiki'd my paragraph. However, even if I'd copy and pasted it, hyperlinks included, it doesn't mean they're not damning evidence to hoax proponents. But hell, if anyone wants to debate the arguments regarding the landing video, I'll promise not to use wikipedia for any purpose.
 
Last edited:
norseclone said:
He's partially correct. I was planning on bringing up the mirrors, the independent observations of the Russians, and the subsequent pictures (specifically, I wanted to bring up the pictures taken in the last few weeks by the LRO, but I couldn't find anything that said they had been to that area, the pictures are amazing however, worth a look). I went searching for what the mirrors were actually called. That article also mentioned moon rocks, so I threw that in there. So apparently, I wiki'd my paragraph. However, even if I'd copy and pasted it, hyperlinks included, it doesn't mean they're not damning evidence to hoax proponents. But hell, if anyone wants to debate the arguments regarding the landing video, I'll promise not to use wikipedia for any purpose.
Click to expand...

OK, partially correct is better than I thought.
 
CycloneErik said:
OK, partially correct is better than I thought.
Click to expand...

True, though I don't think mentioning two points brought up earlier in the post, and then using wikipedia for a technical term and the idea of moon rocks accounts for a direct copy and paste.
 
norseclone said:
He's partially correct. I was planning on bringing up the mirrors, the independent observations of the Russians (kind of mentioned previously), and the subsequent pictures (specifically, I wanted to bring up the pictures taken in the last few weeks by the LRO, but I couldn't find anything that said they had been to that area, the pictures are amazing however, worth a look). I went searching for what the mirrors were actually called. That article also mentioned moon rocks, so I threw that in there. So apparently, I wiki'd my paragraph. However, even if I'd copy and pasted it, hyperlinks included, it doesn't mean they're not damning evidence to hoax proponents. But hell, if anyone wants to debate the arguments regarding the landing video, I'll promise not to use wikipedia for any purpose.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you use wikipedia. I use it as well. The parts I skimmed over I recalled seeing on Wiki and I just assumed you copied more. I just didn't want to re-read it.

I honestly was trying to give my opinion and that's it. Call me crazy, a lunatic, whatever you want. I'm not saying I have evidence to refute it.

Without getting too political, there was a lot at stake during the times and we had a crook of a President running the country as well. We had a President Assassinated, along with Malcom X, MLK, and RFK during the same decade. Just a lot of shady and rotten things were happening in the government.

I am not passionate about this subject. All I am saying is that if someone credible came out and said it was staged, I would not be shocked.
 
CycloneErik said:
I don't, either. He likes to get a little inflammatory, especially when things don't go his way.
Click to expand...

Things not going my way LOL? I really don't care what "CycloneErik" thinks about this nor do I care. The way you post about me, shows you have no respect for me at all, so why should I care about what you think?
 
superfan said:
Yes, and the one question I always give to those who say otherwise is simply, "If it was a fake, why didn't the Russians disprove it way back in 1969?"

Incidentally, today NASA released some higher-quality clips that have been restored by a Hollywood company (who was responsible for restoring Casablanca, among other films):

YouTube - Restored Apollo 11 Apollo 11 Moonwalk Montage
Click to expand...

Actually, if it was a fake, the Russians would've done the same thing. But since it was legit, they knew they couldn't get away with faking something that we had done.
 
balken said:
Totally fake. The Trilateral commission is wholly responsible. Check out the klieg lights visible on the left hand side of the shot and the microphone dropping down from the top of the screen. Also, listen for someone off screen feeding Neil Armstrong his line at the 0:06 mark of the video. Shameful.
Click to expand...
Just curious, when they had microphones in their suits why would they have needed...?
 
Speaking of the LRO:

Here's the website with the pictures. NASA - LRO Multimedia

Scroll to the bottom for moon pictures. Incredibly high-resolution.

Also, with a little more digging I found out that LRO images from the Apollo lunar landings will be released on July 17. Looking forward to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom