Did man land on the moon?

[Hexidecimal]

Google it...

Yeah that was made up after....

 

[Hexidecimal]

I don't live where they do, Have you met them and asked them questions?

Yeah, he wasnt available for comment....

 

[Hexidecimal]

if you're going to pull this card, little one, you better pull it correctly.

grammar, not grammer. :24:



Best way to win an argument. One shot, one kill.



This is a POWERFUL way to state your position. I can feel myself bending to your will already....:smiley24:


it's "to argue," not "too argue." :cool



Thanks, Breath.

Hook line and sinker

 

[Hexidecimal]

Oh, BTW merciless Pounder. Good answer.




On a side note.
Do you think we have a young AEF on our hands? :humm:

what an AEF? and young? :24:

 

[Hexidecimal]

oh and here is conclusive proof

Fake Moon Landings The moon landings are fake!

 

[Sneakiecat]

Fake Moon Landings The moon landings are fake!

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I am moving this to debate

 

[Pudding Time]

None of us here have proof this happened, or did not happen. And we probably never will have proof either way.

 

[Tim]

We know for a fact that the Saturn rockets left earth orbit. That in itself was the hardest part of the trip. So what makes you think that landing on the moon was that big of a step from that point? Are you saying that we invested all that time and effort just to get a rocket to cruise around space for a while and not go to the moon? And to top that off with the photo's and video taken from lunar orbit and on the planet itself (thousands of high res pictures) I find it very improbable that it was faked.

Could those photo's have been faked? sure, anything is possible. But taking into account the absolute perfect attention to detail in accuracy, I do not think it was faked.

Take this into consideration... At the time we visited the moon, the most powerful telescope we had could not take close up pictures of the landing site. We would have to guess at the terrain to recreate it here on earth to properly fake it. Fast forward to today with the Hubble telescope that can see at a resolution of .03 arc seconds. That shows enough detail of the landing site to show that it matches the photo's perfectly... something that could not have been done by guessing 40 years ago.
Now if you are asking why we can't see the Rover or other objects left on the surface of the moon with the Hubble... that's because it would need a resolution of .002 arc seconds to see a 4 meter object at the current distance.

So I will believe until there is proof otherwise, not speculation, but proof.

 

[DaveM]

I beleive there did, tere is more than enough conclusive evidence to prove that they did, than didn't, and before you mention any of the caveats, such as no stars, go out into a very brightly lit town, it become nigh on impossible to see stars, does that mean that humans living on earth is all one big conspiracy and faked for public morale?

 

[teh_fuzz]

mooon? bleh... now men landing in mars would be something worth arguing about.

 

[skyblue]

ok....these conspiracy theorists........they say things like 'that would be different' or 'this would be different'.......how do they know?........have they been there?

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Yeah that was made up after....

Oh ye of little faith.

what an AEF? and young? :24:

You will soon learn of the AEF.

(long story)

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

We know for a fact that the Saturn rockets left earth orbit. That in itself was the hardest part of the trip. So what makes you think that landing on the moon was that big of a step from that point? Are you saying that we invested all that time and effort just to get a rocket to cruise around space for a while and not go to the moon? And to top that off with the photo's and video taken from lunar orbit and on the planet itself (thousands of high res pictures) I find it very improbable that it was faked.

Could those photo's have been faked? sure, anything is possible. But taking into account the absolute perfect attention to detail in accuracy, I do not think it was faked.

Take this into consideration... At the time we visited the moon, the most powerful telescope we had could not take close up pictures of the landing site. We would have to guess at the terrain to recreate it here on earth to properly fake it. Fast forward to today with the Hubble telescope that can see at a resolution of .03 arc seconds. That shows enough detail of the landing site to show that it matches the photo's perfectly... something that could not have been done by guessing 40 years ago.
Now if you are asking why we can't see the Rover or other objects left on the surface of the moon with the Hubble... that's because it would need a resolution of .002 arc seconds to see a 4 meter object at the current distance.

So I will believe until there is proof otherwise, not speculation, but proof.

Perhaps it was all staged by George Lucas? :dunno

*/insert "I has conspiracy" pic here*

 

[groundpounder]

Oh, BTW merciless Pounder. Good answer.

many thanks...

On a side note.
Do you think we have a young AEF on our hands? :humm:

ummmm, no. He likes to argue and appears to be extremely hard headed, os in that respect he has it nailed.

But he doesn't make good points. From time to time, AEF trips and stumbles across a lucid thought. I don't see it happening here. AEF would NEVER come with an argument that stated as its main thrust, "It was all faked and filmed in a studio (as far as I'm concerned." :smiley24:

He's MUCH better than that.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

ummmm, no. He likes to argue and appears to be extremely hard headed, os in that respect he has it nailed.

But he doesn't make good points. From time to time, AEF trips and stumbles across a lucid thought. I don't see it happening here. AEF would NEVER come with an argument that stated as its main thrust, "It was all faked and filmed in a studio (as far as I'm concerned." :smiley24:

He's MUCH better than that.

Alrighty then.

Methinks we should be in for a good show nevertheless tho. What do you think pounder?

 

[groundpounder]

yes. this new one seems bullheaded enough to stay in here long enough to make himself look silly.

Tim clearly has more facts than I, so I will let our fearless leader charge us into battle. My role here is simply moral support and apparently grammAr patrol.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

yes. this new one seems bullheaded enough to stay in here long enough to make himself look silly.

Tim clearly has more facts than I, so I will let our fearless leader charge us into battle. My role here is simply moral support and apparently grammAr patrol.

Now why you gone and mention "silly" merciless Pounder? Not nice....not nice at all.
We don't want to discourage young AEF...sorry...Hexi and make him feel we anti-social and stuff now.
Be nice. :ninja

 

[Hexidecimal]

many thanks...




ummmm, no. He likes to argue and appears to be extremely hard headed, os in that respect he has it nailed.

But he doesn't make good points. From time to time, AEF trips and stumbles across a lucid thought. I don't see it happening here. AEF would NEVER come with an argument that stated as its main thrust, "It was all faked and filmed in a studio (as far as I'm concerned." :smiley24:

He's MUCH better than that.

yes. this new one seems bullheaded enough to stay in here long enough to make himself look silly.

Tim clearly has more facts than I, so I will let our fearless leader charge us into battle. My role here is simply moral support and apparently grammAr patrol.

MMMmmm OK, you have the advantage, I dont know what AEF is, The moon landing is often a good thing to discuss, Im not passionate about it and dont wish to cause issues.

Why would you think I would make myself look silly? if I really had to debate and discuss issues thats not a problem, this is all light hearted.

wait till I start my flat earth thread. :ninja

anyway...


Moon landings tim was a race against the Russians, if the US could land on the moon before them, it would be huge!

the US had space flight funds, but not enough for a moon landing (we can`t even do it in 2008!) so the space race began. it was easier to fake the whole thing with careful planning..

did you know there are no stars in the sky from photos from the moon? there was no crater left from the lunar module, rocks had moved, reflections in the helmets had the wrong lighting, the sun from a certain point should of been visible but it wasnt.

and can someone tell me what the AEF is?

vielen dank, sprecht spater....

Hexi.

 

[SRC]

If we did, why are we not sending more and more humans out into the "last frontier?" The west was a frontier, and everyone went everywhere.
Because it costs a fucking fortune, is why they don't do it more often .. they do it plenty enough though.

If we did not, why are we not working on sending out humans into the vastness of space, starting with our own moon?
Um .. we do .. There have been several trips to space .. plus several to Mars.

The moon, either way, would be a perfect training place for getting used to space, with trips back to earth for supplies, and the squeamish. Not only that, why do we not colonize the moon? It is not like there are native species (that I know of) that exist on the surface that are using its resources.
You can't train to go somewhere by actually going there .. that would defeat the purpose of "training" to go there .. by seeing if you can handle it without dying. IF it affects you adversely during training .. you don't get to go, that'd be hard to do if they just stuck you in a rocket and jetted your ass off first. lol

:willy_nilly: