What do you think was it faked or was it real ???
I reckon it was faked .
Step by step. Please, for the love of God, pay attention:
1) When the astronauts are putting up the American flag it waves. It waves due to the motion of the astronaut's hand on the flagpole, not from wind. In fact, it is the lack of air resistance that cause it to wave so dramatically. If the flag were ANYWHERE except total vacuum, the waving would be negligible. Once the hand is removed, the vibrations quickly cease.
2) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module. That's because no blast crater was created. Lunar gravity is less than 1/4 of Earth's, and so landing on an enormous geyser of flame is not necessary to slow descent. Dust WAS blown back from the module, which is clearly seen on the video, but with no atmosphere on which to drift, most of it fell right back down again.
3) The footprints in the fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, as if made in wet sand There's really no way to counteract this rather strange argument without pictures, which I'm too lazy to post, but countless people have already proven this one to be a little on the bizarre side. Deep dust makes deep footprints, and no gravity and no moisture keeps them crisp. What exactly did you expect?
4) If you speed up the film of the astronauts walking on the Moon’s surface they look like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. Mythbusters proved this to be laughably untrue, even going so far as to film a "moonwalk" in the Vomit Comet. The videos look nothing at all alike.
5) The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt. Absolutely true...if they had stayed in space for an entire year. And if they hadn't been in a shielded pod. And if they were naked.
6) The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica. You're probably smart enough to figure this one out for yourself. Moving on...
6) All six Moon landings happened during the Nixon administration. No other national leader has claimed to have landed astronauts on the Moon, despite 40 years of rapid technological development. What would the reason be? During the Nixon years, it was a commonly held political stance that the only way to stave off nuclear annihilation was to constantly prove one's technological superiority to the enemy, hence the arms race, space race, and so forth. Conquering space was a major milestone, from a military standpoint, and so the frenzied rush to put men on the moon.
Why haven't we gone back in 40 years of "rapid technological development"? Because -- and listen closely now -- THERE HAVE BEEN 40 YEARS OF RAPID TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. We have robots that can go there instead. And they are there. Right now. Taking pictures of the moon landing sites: http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/369228mainap14labeled540.jpg
'Pictures can be Photoshopped!'
Shut the eff up.
I see your talking about the moon landing and its authenticity, well I'm not completely sold that we went to the moon. Just look at everything humanity has achieved and when we set foot somewhere we tend to expand and develop on that field. Why haven't we learnt more about the moon with more recent landings, as wild life experts are continuing to learn and discover new findings on this planet. Why has scientists literally ticked the moon off there list like there's nothing else we could learn. All the theories on both sides seem quite solid but what about the bizarre events of the tragic 11 Apollo astronauts who were mysteriously killed before making their missions, 3 had oxygen pumped into their test capsule until it exploded, which appears likely I guess. But then 7 died in 6 separate plane crashes, and 1 died in a car crash, highly unlikely coincidence.
And in the 6 moon missions the total time on the moon amounted to 4834 minutes and the total number of photographs taken was 5771; this means they were taking an average of one photo every 50 seconds, covering vast distances, all while supposedly doing many other tasks, collecting rocks, planting flags, making repairs, driving moon rovers etc. Is this even feasible?
When the astronauts are putting up the American flag it waves. There is no wind on the Moon.
No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.
The footprints in the fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, as if made in wet sand
If you speed up the film of the astronauts walking on the Moon’s surface they look like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down.
The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt.
The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.
All six Moon landings happened during the Nixon administration. No other national leader has claimed to have landed astronauts on the Moon, despite 40 years of rapid technological development.
And there is more proof aswell
Good refutation, mikeh. Not to mention, all of this has been thoroughly refuted elsewhere, many, many times. Besides any other questions, why would you go to such an incredible amount of effort - equivalent to really sending astronauts to the moon - to fake it? And how would you keep the thousands of engineers and scientists involved quiet? It all seems pretty pointless to me.
There's several indirect pieces of evidence, if you're prepared to look, too. The lunar landing sites were recently imaged by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/
Also, while on the moon, the Apollo astronauts left behind an experiment called the 'lunar retroreflector'. Anyone with the proper equipment can bounce a laser beam off it, with the beam returning exactly to where you shone it from.
Oh, Lee Havey. He was a scamp.
So let's get this straight -- you don't trust your government to be able to put men on the moon, but you DO trust them to be able to coordinate a massive multinational conspiracy involving thousands of people and the spending of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, not to mention the silencing of thousands of private citizens and the subversion of countless pieces of physical evidence without a single person blowing the whistle?
It seems like in order to not trust your government, you've placed more trust in it than any single person has ever trusted anything, ever. So yes, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but if you air it publicly, we are also entitled to call your opinion bats**t insane.
**its fact that jfk's head went the oppisit way to the way it should of went if he was shot by oswald **
Funnily enough, Mythbusters has demonstrated why that's nonsense too. But you're avoiding the question - we weren't talking about JFK, we were talking about the moon landings and why you think the US government is simultaneously too incompetent to send men to the moon, and so hyper-competent that they can arrange a conspiracy involving thousands of people with no leakage.
and for the the record im irish , it aint my goverment
That's not the point - under the guise of not trusting the (US) government, you're claiming they have an unreal, nigh impossible level of competence when it comes to creating multi-billion-dollar conspiracies involving thousands of people without a single piece of evidence or a single person talking.
Right, I wasn't giving credence to your mentioning of yet another conspiracy theory on top of your first, I was just pointing out that you misspelled "Harvey."
With regards to JFK's head-snapping physics, keep in mind that your understanding of physics also led you to believe that a flag shouldn't wave on the moon or that a footprint won't remain in a vacuum.
no ye have not mythbusters have and even though I love that show I dont take their findings as gospel , I have no problem with ye beliving it was real I just dont agree , And the fact that man landed on the moon id not mind blowing to me atall , whats mindblowing to me it that they are ment to have done it with 1960 technology .
cenafan is right...all those theories have been tested again and again.
As for your so-important Nixon theory, you stated yourself there was rapid technological development...they've moved on to new things...the moon has been done, why do they need to keep going back?
They've been working on other parts of space.
wow this has been one crazy argument that traffic has lost and refuses to lose. I like the persistence but for speech and debate team you would have lost it from the start. and you also might want to study physics like mikeh said cause apparently you dont know much about it. just the substandard truth about things.
I still reckon it was fake
Why? We've thoroughly debunked all the 'evidence' you presented, and nobody's even presented a plausible reason why anyone would want to fake the moon landings in the first place. Is the idea that man landed on the moon so mind blowing that you can't accept it?
So you belive it too my god , do ye belive everything ye are told , its fact that jfk's head went the oppisit way to the way it should of went if he was shot by oswald thats just phisics , but belive what ye want its been nice debating with ye but we are gettin nowere and I got work to do laters .
You still haven't explained why you think it's fake despite having all your 'evidence' debunked - or why you think it's not debunked, for that matter.
What specific bit of 1960s technology do you doubt was capable of doing what it was claimed to do?
I dont belive the theorys have been debunked , I think we will just have to dissagree , why are you so threatened by someone who differs in opinion , why cant you seem to accept I dont belive , we cand differ on opinion its ok
I'm not threatened by you, I'm puzzled. You persist in believing in something absurd despite ample evidence against it and no evidence for it, but refuse to state why it is that you continue to believe in it.
Why you belive that he shot JFK seriously.
and for the the record im irish , it aint my goverment , if we are talking about my goverment I dont even trust Mr Cowen to wipe his own a55
On mythbusters they tested that theroy, it turns out that a flag will wave on hte moon. All the other theroys you said were also tested. They concluded that the moon landing was real.
This sums it up far better than I could: http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/
If you don't want to read the article, the picture alone pretty much tells the story.
how ecactly did they test the nixon theory then , or what reason did they give for no more trips to the moon in 40 years .
I stated why already , and also I dont trust goverment , you prob think JFK was realy shot by lee havey oswald aswell dont ya.
its happened myth busters proved it and are you saying the rocket never actually launched off the launch pad
It was real, but I'd like to hear your opinions on why you think it was fake.
I still reckon it was fake
it was fake.