Soo, when everyone is stating something the proves we didn't go to the moon, are the "facts" all coming from the "crackpot article"?

_________________

Wikipedia said the light shielding was plenty on such a short journey, giving the astronauts a little more radiation in a day than you'd get during a regular X-ray, but in deep space it wouldn't work so well. Oddly enough, the same entry says it's too dangerous to do it now, but also say liquid hydrogen is pretty good as a rad shield.

However, it's wikipedia.

_________________

All my skepticism on page one was ignorant of the article.

What I learned from the article was that the historical facts fit the simplest explanation much better than I thought, and so do the inconsistencies in the video.

Simplest Explanation: Despite the science, Kennedy decided America only needed eight years to get to the moon, making it a political imperative and, as the actual facts asserted themselves in the form of more time and money and technology, it was clear that the only way to reach the deadline was to orbit inside the magnetosphere while a satellite beamed a pre-recorded mission film through mission control.

Actual Explanation: America in the sixties was a pinnacle civilisation and they used technology indistinguishable from magic, presumably by using the power of capitalism.

Nobody? Seriously? Begins with 'B', ends with 'e'...

_________________

The technology of blasting rockets into space isn't that complicated - as long as you can do the calculations for orbital insertion and extraction, and have enough fine-grained control over the propulsion systems. Far from "magic" in my opinion. The main obstacles are in providing life support, and operating without any safety net. If you get it wrong - people die. But with the political climate of the time, that was deemed a necessary risk. These days, it no longer is, which is why it has become too dangerous to try again.

Another reason I find it easier to believe the moon landings were not faked is that - if they were faked, then it was a pretty stupid way to do it.

If I were going to fake a moon landing, I would do it once. And then make up a reason why there couldn't be any more attempts. I certainly wouldn't do it another five times afterwards just for fun - that only increases the risk that the hoax is exposed. Also, I would pretend that the camera broke halfway through the mission - so maybe showing them landing on the moon and starting to jump about, and then the camera breaks. Oh no! But don't worry folks, we safely returned those astronauts and now here they are to tell you all about it. I'd also pretend that only one reel of photo film survived, and that cosmic rays had blatted most of the detail off them, so they all looked blurry and difficult to make out. Oh, and the "moon rock" samples had to be abandoned at the last minute because someone realised the weight calculations were wrong or the oxygen nearly ran out or something, and it was touch and go whether the men would make it back off the surface of the moon at all. Thank goodness they did! Take that, Ruskies!

I also wouldn't pretend that one time we sent them with a little car to drive around in. Honestly - who is going to believe that?

Simplest explanation: NASA employed 400,000 people over ten years to go to the moon on six separate occasions, and they brought back lots of evidence.

Alternative explanation: NASA employed 400,000 people over ten years to fake moon landings on six separate occasions with unnecessarily extravagant detail, and successfully fooled everyone for decades, covering their tracks so well that the only evidence anyone has of the hoax is that some shadows don't look right on the photos, and that estimated radiation levels may be too large.

B...i...

_________________

What Xyle read Bi-Curious No More too? Finally I'm not alone! But no I wouldn't believe much of what was in that book either; it's just filthy saucy fiction that titilates the senses. My favourite story was "Pantied Pleaser" - a traveling salesman meets a petite, sexy woman in the hotel lounge and finds that she brings “something extra” to their encounter

_________________
The chemistry must be respected.

We believe it not because of its extravagent detail but because to question it was treasonable.

And the magic of the tech was all about life support. The newtonian physics is basic, and the rocket engineering is extremely difficult but the ability of the astronauts and their equipment to withstand the actual conditions was simply miraculous.

Look, I don't feel the need to follow the crowd but I do feel a real need for the maths to add up. It doesn't.

There is also the issue of the billions of dollars that went into NASAs budget. If this was a hoax, where did the money go? If the answer is "it went into researching long distance rockets", which pretty much equals "we used your money to research weapons without you knowing it", then we've got a problem.

_________________

Did humans go to the moon? I think so. Scientists sometimes have a habit of harping on worst-case scenarios. "If x is attempted, CATASTROPHEEEEE!!!" Fortunately, there are those who downplay the dangers and forge ahead into new realms of scientific exploration, and those who say it can't be done are left in the dust of those who are doing it. For example, it sometimes blows my mind that there have been so few nuclear disasters, especially given the rather crude tech and limited safety features of early reactors. Yes, people were exposed to radiation, meltdowns happened, some things were learned the hard way and people died. But now it's 2012 and we have nuclear power in spite of the naysayers who predicted catastrophe.

Would it be insanely dangerous to blast into outer space in a tin can and attempt to land it on the moon? Absolutely. Does that mean it didn't happen? No. People predict catastrophe all the time and are frequently wrong. Consider the following: The earth is not covered in water from melted polar ice caps, nor has it been sucked into a black hole created by the Large Hadron Collider.

Now, I read your crackpot article. You can return the favor by reading these:
Conspiracists and their main proposals
Third party evidence for Apollo moon landings

EDIT: I would also like to mention that, being something of an amateur photographer myself, I have seen plenty of photos turn out with strange results. It would take more than a few photos with odd shadows and irregular exposure to convince me that the moon landings were a fabrication.

_________________
"Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

The Russians would have had every reason to expose the lie, and yet, even today, more than 70% of them believe the moon landings happened. Was the Soviet government in on the hoax? That makes no sense at all.

Can't remember who said what about something to do with radiation, but if it's to do with space travel in general, rather than solely being about exiting the spacecraft thing and having a saunter on the moon, is the same true of the Russians putting a man in space?

_________________

It's the same. Every time an astronaut goes on a space walk in a flimsy linen suit to fix a problem outside the International Space Station, they immediately die and have to be replaced by an alien replicant. But the government's treaty with the aliens recently expired, so that's why they now use trained chimpanzees to repair the space station instead.

Do try to keep up.

I have read your wikipedia links thoroughly, sir.

My opinion of the moon landing is unchanged.

I'm a bit disappointed in you, though, Japes. Wikipedia? Really?

I blame your fascination with Buddhism. It's ruined your ability to think rationally.

No, more likely it's my agressive drug use and insomnia. Duh.

And if you were paying attention, you'd know it was Hinduism, or more accurately, vedic literature.

Ha, just call me darth veda. Aha... ah.

Oh shit. Buddhism. I forgot I was gonna get into that.

_________________

I never pay attention. That's how I manage to survive debating with Xyle.

I've stopped paying attention too. I'm worried that if I take a good, long, lucid look at my life, I'll see my post count here and how many posts I make a day, on average, and just end it all.

_________________

Please no!

So worth it:

_________________
My North Star: Jose Gomez
I'm an introvert. Now shut up so I can be happy. Except for you, helpful sales bot. Also, download this.
Away from The House, yet forever near to my heart

You won't get fried just because you venture into space. It's about how far away from earth you go. If you leave the magnetic field, or rather enter the van allen belt (or land on the moon), you're in trouble.

Japes: I think it's rather dismissive to simply say "I've seen strange stuff happen to photos" in answer to what our dear crackpot author has presented. There's more evidence than funny lightning. The pictures have quite obviously been tampered with.

_________________

My favorite of which is the Coke bottle.

_________________
My North Star: Jose Gomez
I'm an introvert. Now shut up so I can be happy. Except for you, helpful sales bot. Also, download this.
Away from The House, yet forever near to my heart

I did wonder how you managed it.



It won't be pretty, just a heads up.

I still confused on whom is thinking the moonlanding is a hoax and who thinks it's real.

This is my intake:
Wolfsbane; Leaning towards hoax now seems to believe it's real.

Ytzk; Seems to think it's a hoax

TDL and Waye; Keeping their distance, but thinking it's real.

Smuel; seems to think it's real, but could just argue against ytxk

Japes; real as the sun.

Gross; Seems like a conspiracy to cover up nukes

Jojo; Not sure, hardly read any posts.

anyone else; can't be bothered.

_________________

Fine then, the moon landings never happened... In fact, nothing has ever happened, and everything is a lie. History itself is a hoax perpetuated by a sophisticated alien mind in order to control the population by providing artificial wars and competitions in order to curb our competitive drives. Our memories are a fabrication of the alien mind which uses telepathy to control and manipulate us; therefore, the concept of telepathy is suppressed in order to prevent our minds from becoming too strong to control, which means only the strong minded can overcome the mind control in order to actually believe in the mind's capacity to communicate mind-to-mind. And I am a subordinate of the alien mind propagating the concept of telepathy in order to test for other strong minds for potential recruitment or elimination. My "craziness" is just an act as a member of the grand conspiracy in order to gain acceptance on this forum through reverse psychology and all of my arguments serve to manipulate your understandings so that you believe what they want you to believe. My poor arguments and improper logic just making it all the more unlikely which provides a proper defense in your minds against the concept of me being a member of a sophisticated group that controls the world. Doesn't the fact that every argument I have possesses a crucial flaw seem a little suspicious?

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.