Hey,
Just a little something we were discussing in Critical Thinking today.. whether the 1969 Moon Landing was a hoax or not.
What's your view, and why? :)
Printable View
Hey,
Just a little something we were discussing in Critical Thinking today.. whether the 1969 Moon Landing was a hoax or not.
What's your view, and why? :)
Don't know - why? Because I wasn't there.
No one can say for sure but I think personally it is possible - whether or not they did it is a different thing. I have seen some pretty convincing conspiracy theories but as I said, I wasn't there so I don't have all the sense of what happened before/after ect.
I think it was real tbh. There was a race to the moon between the US and other countries like Russia, and Russia wouldn't just back down if they thought the whole thing was a hoax. If there was any doubt that the USA did not land the first man on the moon then Russia would have challenged this, proved it to be a hoax and then continued the race to the moon.
Besides today people use telescopes to look at the moon and i'm sure they can view the 1969 landing site and that flag, machinery and footprints are still there to this date.
I just think it was a big conspiracy, everything that ever happens seems to get some kind of conspiracy around it.
This is true. It was part of the Cold War.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Danube-
The only thing that puts me in doubt is the fact that the flag seemed to flutter in "the wind" but obviously the moon has no wind. But that could be due to something else, and also at some points you can see a reflection in the astronauts visors...
because theres no gravity or friction in space it is possible that once you flick the flag or move it in any way that it will keep moving forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by R0BB13G
That's also true. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocaine
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Basically every bit of evidence towards it being a hoax.
I for one, believe that the moon landings were real, but I do find the subject quite interesting.
This is what we were discussing. There were some VERY high quality photographs taken on the moon with cameras embedded in their space suit, yet the video feed, was of terrible quality, black and white.. jerky and fuzzy, etc. How did they take such good quality photographs within their spacesuits (photos which would only be possible by changing lenses, films.. which would be rather tedious in a bulky suit) when a simple, still video couldn't pick anything up?Quote:
Originally Posted by R0BB13G
I've not watched any video closely enough to see it "flutter", but I'm aware that a wire frame was put around the flag to hold it upright.. which seems fair enough to me.
Personally, I think the Moon Landing happened.. however I do admit there is a substantial amount of evidence to doubt it.
We did a Neil Armstrong text in English Language, and another thing, on like the 1st lesson we had in English this girl said she had met an astronaut. She said although the moon landings 'may' be real, most of the pictures are fake.
Straight from the horses mouse.
I feel it could be real. But it also might not be.
Totally agree here and that's always been my thoughts on the matter. You can actually connect to some of the equipment they put on the moon which is as gooder proof as any for me;Quote:
Originally Posted by -Danube-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...ing_experiment
They do it in a recent Big Bang Theory episode, if you fire lasers at a certain point of the moon (Where they placed the reflectors) they'll beam back to Earth.
Why dont they just fly to the moon and livestream it?
If you take a flag, and use the flag pole to twist it and push it down into the surface, here on earth, the flag would ripple and shake. It stops pretty quickly once you finish touching it because of Newtons Laws and gravity.
So, when they were on the moon, considering the gravity is only 1/6 of what it is here, the same thing happened. They were pushing the pole into the ground, shaking it around, so of course the flag ripples and moves the exact same way. The difference is that on the moon, there is less gravity and less other forces working on it, therefore the flag continues to ripple for a time after they stop touching it.
This is why you see it moving. It is not wind. It is purely the fact that the forces on the moon are lower, therefore it takes the flag longer to settle.
Why when the astronauts jump in the air does it take them so long to come back down compared to on earth? Less gravity, less forces acting on the object.
I think it was real. Seeing that there was a Cold War going on between Russia and USA.
In such a situation , No country can tolerate an insult if such a thing is found out
NASA's ambitions are beyond the moon now. They have firmly set their sights on a Mars program, and exploring other planets. Just recently they found oxygen ions on Rhea, one of Saturn's moons. A while back now they also found oxygen rich atmospheres on 2 of Jupiter's moons. This is the sort of thing NASA are concentrating on at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by HC0R3H00LIH00P
I do wish however that we were going to the moon again. Mostly because I wasn't born until '88 so I didn't get to see the first landing, and I want to be a part of it. But also because I think we should begin building on the moons surface. Sadly that won't be happening for many, many years now!
It was real. Watch the episode of Mythbusters and it explains everything.
I don't see why it is so hard for people to accept LOL.
Without drag, gravity or any other force working on the flag, the momentum will make the flag move. Since it is in a vacuum it will take longer to stop waving. That gives the illusion of wind.
The landings happened, and I always have and always will believe that.
Explaining the flag thing : It's physics and the flag is supposed to flap.
The government spending heaps of money for a pointless hoax?
Eh. It's happened before. I wouldn't be suprised if it was a hoax but, no one knows for sure I guess except the people involved.
The USA wouldn't have been much confident and proud if it was hoax.
Maybe it was all made up because the countries couldn't believe such a thing could happen.
My Physics teacher got annoyed when i asked him this question in like year 8,
I believe it wasn't a hoax.
Because government lies all the time, we did afterall only recently invade another country based on a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirTezza
There was an episode of QI I think with a little mention of this halfway through :)
I don't think it was faked but I think the real question is do I really care?
Yeh, the government lies. But pulling off something as extravagant as a moon landing hoax is pretty difficult, especially considering what else was going on at the time. But everything seen in the Apollo moon landing videos has been questioned with conspiracy and all of those conspiracies have been answered with 100% validity. At this point it seems it's purely up to each individual to how they interpret the events of the landing, because as far as the experts are concerned they have already answered it.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
My belief? .... They went to the moon :D
My mum and dad watched it on tv and they said it would of been almost impossible to fake it. And I believe that it was real due to the massive effect it has had on space travel today.
Well i'm indifferent on the topic before I reply, but i'm just stating - don't believe everything government tells you, infact it is wise not to believe a word government says unless you can prove it from reliable sources/use your own thought.
Well the CIA was considering blowing up civilian targets (and consquently civilians themselves) back in the 1960s in order to justify an invasion of Cuba and thats not to mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which never happened) and Saddam Hussein his WMDs (which didn't exist).Quote:
Originally Posted by SirTezza
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." - Adolf Hitler
They were going to invade Cuba because of the Nuclear Weapons threat that was there...they had every right to defend themselves but they chose the better option of blockading it and in the end the weapons were taken out.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
The WMDs may or may not have existed, we don't know, they were never found...doesn't mean they don't exist.
It seems obvious to me that there were no nuclear weapons in Cuba. And I hope you aren't inferring that they had the right to kill civilians to justify a war. The same kind of hype seems to happen whenever America wants to go to war. Like how the CIA told JFK (who told the people, believing it himself) that there were possibly 2000 nuclear warheads in Russia's arsenal when they actually only had 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by R0BB13G
No they did not have the right to kill innocent people but they had the right to defend themselves. There is clear evidence showing there were nuclear weapons on Cuba and that Russia were prepared to use them. I'm taking history GCSE and we're studying the Cold War...I think I would know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wig44.
I'm well aware of the Cuban missile crisis and i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about Operation Northwood which aimed to get the public behind an invasion of Cuba by staging attacks on U.S. cities/soil and blaming it on Cuba, when infact it was the CIA.Quote:
Originally Posted by R0BB13G
The WMD issue, i'm sorry but there was no evidence that Iraq has WMD and its just as fruitless a claim as I could accuse you right now of harbouring terrorists and enemies of the state - the result (compared to the invasion of Iraq) would be a Police raid on your house, and if no terrorists were found I could just then say "well that doesn't prove their were never any terrorists there in the first place" by which time your house is destroyed.
The Bush administration was planning to do something about Iraq well before 9/11 or even before they gained office, infact if you watch Farenheit 9/11 you will see the way in which Rumsfeld came in to government agencies the day after 9/11 and said "Saddam, Iraq - get back to me" and when senior officals said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Rumsfeld said that there were not good targets in Afghanistan, lets bomb Iraq instead. Farenheit 9/11 is watchable on Youtube, pretty good quality and the entire thing is uploaded, here's the start and i'd advise a viewing of the entire documentary to anybody; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu40ZR7i_9M
I've mentioned U.S. government examples of deception of the public (lies in frank terms), but I could also go on about the devious 'European project' in its aim to create a European Superstate and then there's the global warming fiaso + numerous others such as swine flu.
Just because it's written down, it doesn't mean it's the truth. I bet half the stuff wiki leaks had just leaked counters some of the stuff we thought were happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by R0BB13G
I thought this debate was about the moon landings?
But there are photos from the U2 spy planes which show the war heads? lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
But meh, the US government has lied, but I really doubt they'd lie about such a huge thing and especially during that time, if they had then Russia would've proved it false. It was about who was most advanced, Russia would've done everything to make sure that they looked more powerful so if there was any doubt about the landings they would've capitalized on it.
It was a part of the Cold War? Was it Russia they were racing? Lets say this was a hoax, do you not think the Russians would go "Here lads they never got to the moon"
I don't think it was a hoax. I think it was completely legit.
Thing have to be done for a first time like when Sir Edmund Hillary & that other tenzing dude climbed Mt Everest for the first time..
This thread is a hoax.
You should definitely watch both Zeitgeist movies. Both fantastic. Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist: Addendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
You're actually all wrong about the flag, apparently when the flag pole was made they didn't account for the expanding and contracting of the metals during take off and landing and so the pole was damaged in transit, so when they tried to put the flag up, the pole didn't deploy properly and the flag wasn't straightened out, giving the "waving" image we see in pictures.
But yes, I do believe it was real, there's no real reason for anyone to lie.
I want to believe it's real and have seen the mythbusters episode apparantly busting this myth.
But there's absolutely no way they could have survived the radiation. The shielding they supposedly had would be nowhere near thick enough to properly protect them. It would also have destroyed any the camera film of any pictures taken.
Please know what you are talking about when entering into a debate topic. Radiation would have come from the Van Allen belt, which they passed through in under 2 hours, meaning they did not get a serious hit of radiation. Also, plastic, metal and water are all shields to the radiation, and those things were abundant on the spacecraft. The trajectory they flew on also targeted areas of lesser radiation, meaning they would have hit even less.Quote:
Originally Posted by N!ck
The Van Allen belt is simply energetic charged particles that have become trapped by the earth's magnetic field. It isn't a danger if you pass through it quickly enough. Dr James Van Allen has even said that the belt itself would cause no hindrance to manned spaceflight.
Don't worry, I do know what I'm talking about ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by SirTezza