hAi gUyz im PrEtti ShuRe teH spAce iz noT reaL bEcauze all we Has is pIctureZ anD yaHoo andsers doeZ not Say.

Actually yes, it does...

Do you believe that we really did land on the moon? - Yahoo! Answers

Anyway, I believe the U.S. Landed on the moon. With all the space race drama and intelligence scandals with the Soviets during that time period, I think we would have been called out internationally if they tried to fake it. They were watching very closely, and gathering as much info as possible about it, and they know it's real.

It could practice for Nuclear bombing!

my thoughts are that we did. But they could have just slowed down the footage to make it look like they were bouncing around. Also, how did they land the craft on the moon so easily when we never have been on a surface with no gravity? And where the hell is the original tape? Supposedly it got lost in Australia or something. We will never know for sure.

I think it happened something like 40 years ago, or so I read in the news paper.

I think it is because there are so many satellites orbiting the Earth if they try to lunch a rocket to the moon, maybe it would knock down one of them - then there goes your GPS system or maybe Sirius Sadellite Radio.

LMAO...
You're can't be serious.


You think we just have un-tracked, random satellites flying around and our space shuttles are in finger-cross missions in the hopes that millions of tax payer dollars aren't completely wasted by a kamikaze rogue satellite collision while attempting to enter Earth orbit?

Satellites aren't the problem. We know where they are and we're smart enough to plan around them.

I like this thread because I got to add a couple names to my list of "people never to attempt an intelligent conversation with."

Agreed.

oh yeah I heard something about that, my cousin used to work for NASA and he said that they track all the nuts and bolts and other bits and peice flying around the Earth in the outer atmoshpere. He said like if a astronaut drops a screw driver they have to track it. I don't what agency and all that does that, maybe its NASA or maybe the NSA, something like that. He said that the space shuttle constantly comes back home to Earth with dings and scratched from these flying thingamajiggers (space derbis?) in the upper atmosphere.

Nooo. T.T I don't even know why this thread still exists.

Somebody says something. Somebody else shoots them down. They agree.

=P No more disagreeing.

I'm still thinking about what you said, I can't totally agree with everything I've read so far, so I don't know wether to agree with you or not.

Everything you say will be rebutted with something more intelligent.

Don't try.

What I said was said with ignorance. I hadn't done my homework. I hadn't researched what I was talking about. It was stupid.

I was so suprised to find out that it was the 40th Anniversary of the Lunar Landing. I didn't say we did or didn't go to the moon, I'm taking the middle ground, I'm peading the 5th. So I'm not afraid of buttals or rebuttals.

I didn't do my homework either before I started this thread, and I am finding out so many interesting facts as I read people's post here. I'm learning as I go along.

how did the module land on the moon so easily if they had never landed on a surface with no gravity? Don't you think it would be harder than what they showed in the video?

The Moon's gravitational pull is only 17% of the Earth's, so the Module weighs less on the Moon and everything on it has to be scaled down too. I think the rocket have to exert less force and uses less fuel and has a weaker thrust to perform the same maneuvers on the Moon compared to a Module landing on the Earth. What would had happened if the Scientist got Gravitation pull of the Moon wrong? Or one buster rocket was off, would it make sense that the Module could flip upsidedown?

But the moon does have gravity and atmosphere anyway.

If you think it would be easier for that clunky thing to land on Earth, in the desert, with gravity.... then you're sadly mistaken.
The blast power that would be needed to make a nice smooth landing on earth in that thing would be far more than the module was possibly capable of providing.
The fact that it's low power works in an environment with very little gravity. Besides, since there is no (significant) atmosphere on the moon, there isn't any friction burn, wind, etc.

You scientifically have more problems landing in our atmosphere than that of landing on the lunar surface.



What's funny, is that people use that argument you just used and they don't even realize that they don't need it. If they think it's all wool pull, then they can just say "it was so easy for it to land, because they used wire and pulleys in the studio."
And when you get around to proving that actually happened, you let me know.

i would think no matter what they wouldn't be able to land perfectly the first try.

i'll take your word for it.

Dude, these guys pilot space ships. They know how to operate thrust mechanics in space. They'd been in orbit before, remember?

i think it's a remarkable testament to the power of idiocy that a few morons can systematically dismember the fantastic achievements of so many brilliant minds.

You realize this is just as retarded as flat out denying we landed on the moon, don't you? Do you take this same approach to all other historical events? Are you unwilling to say either way if the Civil War occurred? How about the stock market crash? Did Hitler really invade Poland?

I'm waiting for someone to say "Pics or it didn't happen".

I'd rather talk about the government killing JFK

I'd rather talk about the real mysteries of the world.

Like the sock thing.
And what exactly is in hotdogs.
And why people like Metallica.

The sock thing?

Yeah, where you always put your socks to wash in pairs... yet when you fold clothes, one is always missing.

Ahh yes, I am familiar with this mystery.

Maybe in 2012 there will be a black hole created in the earth due to the massive amounts of socks that were deposited into some curled up dimension... and the sheer mass of socks create their own gravitational pull, sucking everything and everyone into oblivion?


Give it two weeks.
Someone's gonna start believing that.

Hey Darkest Hour, just out of curiosity, I gotta ask.

Is there any completely idiotic conspiracy theory you DON'T believe in?

I can have this on History channel and Rush Limabugh by the end of the week.

Make a fake news story and send it to Darkest Hour so he can freak out and make a thread about it.

i only believe in the 9/11 and north american union theories.

I won't knock you for being curious, Darkest Hour, but the reason people get on your case about this stuff is because you bring out a conspiracy or video without really thinking it through and having a personal stance on it.
So we think it through for ya, and sometimes it might not be the nicest explanation.

Hey, at least I'm not stepping on anyone's toes, you know. By pleading the 5th, I'm more like a referee or a talk show host. I'm not try to expunge my point of veiw on anyone. Those things you mention go beyond the scope of the Lunar Landing topic, but since this topic peaked you curiousity about my historical perspective all I have to say is no I am not a history revisionist. I believe anything that is printed.

You raised a tough question to answers, but in a nut shell yes they happened, they are factual, because they occur in the history books. Interestingly enough, if you look at each of your examples, all there conclusion draws the world closer to Globalization. If you were to ask "Why they happened?" like Why the Civil War happened? or like "Why Hitler invaded Poland?" or "Why the Stock Market crash?", then you just opened yourself a can of worms. Because they are so many points of veiws of the past and each with an invested ideaology, if someone mentions how he interprets the past his in for a long drawn out brouhaha over things in the past he had no control over in the first place. So you understand why I don't want to give any "Why's" things happened.

Why the Stock Market crash? Coffee

^ There's a difference between denying that something happened versus denying WHY it supposedly happened.
I really don't think I need to explain it further than that.
This whole topic of discussion is based on "did", not "why".


The thing is, just pleading the 5th about something is basically saying you have no opinion toward it. If that's the case, I don't see the point of even commenting in a debate about the matter.

All of that was adressed to Bungolow who insist I flat out denied the Lunar Landing. I don't ever recall ever flat out denying landed on the moon, at least in this thread. All I did was raise the question about the Lunar Landing. Please understand that Bungie asked if I question other of historical facts found in text books - and I don't. To his question, I wanted him to understand that history is more than "yes" and "no" to an event, but what does that event means to people, what it means metaphysically. (reread what I wrote, and you'll see I didn't equate "did" and "why")

IF this thread ends up exploring "Why we went to the Moon." and it's done by other posters then I see nothing wrong with it. Someone was trying to spam it with lost socks. I never thought of at the time when I started this thread of adding "why" we went to the moon, maybe because I was in shock of discovering we did go to the moon. But I think in hindsight it would of made a more dynamic thread, you know, to explore why we went to the moon. But hey, no thread ends up the way it started anyway.

Well when I say I'm pleading the 5th, it means I don't want to incriminate myself by revealing my opinion, I'm not insisting my opinion on anyone, and I'm not trying to favor one side or the other. I'm just an unbias observer perusing whatever anyone writes.

What are you rambling about? Did I ask you to give any "whys"? I just asked if you're willing to employ the same skepticism to these events that you do to the moon landing. What about the moon landing, specifically, makes you unwilling to say whether it happened or not? It is a historical event just like the ones I mentioned that you say "in a nutshell, happened" (what does that mean anyway? what about outside a nutshell, is the answer still as simple?). And again, because I am dumbfounded by this response...I never asked for "whys" Non-sequitur Man. And I never asked about globalization. Are you tripping?

Dude, what are you talking about? If English isn't your first language just let me know, I'll go easier on you. I didn't insist that you flat out denied the moon landing. I said that your unwillingness to say one way or the other whether it happened was just as stupid as flat out denying it. See the distinction? You're the one who wants to talk about "whys" and "metaphysical" implications (I swear you're tripping) when no one else cares. I just want to know why you're willing to firmly say that Hitler invaded Poland but not willing to take a stance on the moon-landing. They each happened, it's as simple as that.

Would you be more comfortable if this discussion was about why we went to the moon? You really want to talk about that for some reason. Even though you're unwilling to say if we even went there in the first place. And you didn't know we went to the moon until recently? How old are you? I can forgive you if you're really young I suppose...

Again I ask why you're pleading the 5th on this issue and not the other historical events.

Furst of all, those things you talked about, I don't have a thread on them, if I did I would try to be balanced and fair, like the Spansih Civil War, I wouldn't want to take a side, just in case you were a communist.

I can't see my "unwillingness" to say one way or the other weather it happened was just as "stupidly" as flat out denying it. I see it as being open minded to whoever wants to voice his opinion in the thread. Capisce!?


Whoa, let's back up here for a minute, Hitler didn't invade Poland. I don't know what you are trying to pull here. I looked it up on wikipedea and I found out it was the German Nazi army.