Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 159
  1. #51
    Sniper
    Guest

    Moon hoax

    Dave. of course i've read the site i posted earlier. and i also was able to read the explanations of NASA.

    I don't know if you're paid by NASA to defend the moon landing but sorry i don't believe everything that NASA says. And it is really easy for them to fake the moon landing.

    I'll only believe the moon landing if i can see the stuff they left in the moon, yes that includes the footprints, using a device here on earth. with today's technology, i can't imagine why Nasa can't come up with something like it to disprove the moon hoax theories.

  2. #52
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Quote
    Quote: Sniper
    I don't know if you're paid by NASA to defend the moon landing...
    In logic such a leap is known as "knights move thinking". There is no logical reason at all to think that I might be employed by NASA simply because I agree with them on one point.

    As it happens I think that NASA is a largely disfunctional organization which badly needs a complete overhaul. However I won't let that get in the way of my logical thought processes.

    Quote
    Quote: Sniper
    but sorry i don't believe everything that NASA says
    Neither do I. I take each issue on its own and do my own research. NASA has probably told plenty of porkies, but landing on the moon doesn't seem to be one of them. I came to that conclusion by extensively reseaching the topic myself.

    Quote
    Quote: Sniper
    And it is really easy for them to fake the moon landing.
    No, it would be impossible for NASA to fake the moon landing. One (of many) reasons is the problem of the required participants in the hoax - there's no scenario which would work (see www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/participants.html for more info). There are many other arguments which show how it would be easier to just go to the moon than to try and fake it.

    Quote
    Quote: Sniper
    I'll only believe the moon landing if i can see the stuff they left in the moon, yes that includes the footprints, using a device here on earth. with today's technology, i can't imagine why Nasa can't come up with something like it to disprove the moon hoax theories.
    The moon hoax theories have been disproven beyond any doubt. Anyone who cares to look at the facts can see that.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  3. #53
    gregwithnail
    Guest

    gregwithnail

    I did some calulcations using the technical specifications of the Hubble space telescope a couple of years ago. (The details, such as altitude, resolution, etc are all available online).

    Something interesting struck me.

    There are a lot of factors at work: The power of the lens, the altitude of the telescope, the distance to the moon, etc.

    When you start doing the maths, these factors add up. A change in one of them affects the others quite a lot.

    I won't patronise or bore you here by reproducing the maths. I'm sure the arithmetic is well within your capabilities. The results are interesting though...

    With all those factors, the ACTUAL resolution of the Hubble telescope on the surface of the moon works out at...

    HAVE A GUESS:

    a) Enough to discern, say, a landing site / debris, etc

    or

    b) JUST not QUITE enough to settle the debate.

    Go work it out. I's not proof, by a long long way. But a convenient coincidence at the very least???

  4. #54
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    I'd say it's a very inconvenient coincidence actually, but that's because I believe the landings weren't faked and I know how much this whole thing is a thorn in NASA's side which they could do without.

    Having spent many years following this debate, I'm aware that even if Hubble could image the landing sites it wouldn't make one iota of difference to the hoax theorists. I know that a return to the Moon won't convince them. I know that if you took the hoax theorists themselves to the Moon and showed them the landing sites in person they would still claim it's all fake.

    The hoax theorists are making a lot of money. I've seen them argue their cases and lose convincingly in forums like badastronomy.com. When they lose they simply move on to a new forum and find new suckers. I've come to believe they know damn well they are wrong. I believe they are modern-day snake oil salesmen who are purposely deceiving people in order to sell their books and videos.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  5. #55
    moon7
    Guest
    OK.Let's leave out all those photos ,which quiet convincing that it it was a hoax,and concentrate on something called LOGIC.
    Russians beat Americans in everything but landing on the Moon.I've seen many comments by American officialls that Russians 10 years ahead of Americans when it comes to Space exploration during late 70s-early 80s.Yet,they never did it.The stupid explanation that they gave up because it already was done is plain stupid.Why Americans didn't give up when Russians sent a first man,animal,woman in space and created the first space station to orbit the Earth.It doesn't make sence.Does it?

    I am for the advancement of World culture and science,no matter what country it comes from,but I was very upset when I came to my personal conclussion that man never got to the Moon.It was a given fore many years.

    NASA explonation is not good enough.I know they doing something called "Damage control".But it is just to lame.

    Mr.Moderator try to chew this one.

  6. #56
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    logic n. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

    It's ironic that the term "logic" is bandied around so often by hoax believers who seem to completely lack any understanding of what logic actually means. If you can cite the logical process which supports your reasoning I will take notice, but until then your claims are meaningless.

    You might be interested in reading more about the logic of the moon hoax theory.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  7. #57
    Andy
    Guest

    Link

    someone asked earlier for a download link for "Did we land on the moon?" the documentary, and here's the link

    (sorry if it's already been posted and i just missed it)

    http://www.bax.no/video/Conspiracy%2...The%20Moon.avi

  8. #58
    Andy
    Guest
    I downloaded and watched this expecting to find it informative and maybe give me an idea as to whether the moon landing was a hoax, but it's just a biased piece of garbage, manipulated to say what they want so FOX can get a few more ratings

    Are there any good documentaries out there that look at both sides fairly?

    Thanks

  9. #59
    OK, I'm reading & researching this subject. I've reviewed many of the easy found Google links on the subject & bits from the Nasa site.

    I'm still open-minded but very sceptical towards this subject at present. I was 10 years old when Neil Armstrong "allegedly" stepped out on the moon and dearly WANT the whole thing to be true.

    From early research, I pay little notice to such as the photo theories because they can be argued either way and in any instance the arguable effects appear to be reproducable on our good old planet earth. Perspective is very deceiving and I've being paying more and more attention to it as I simply walk around and find you're quite right about converging shadow effects - it's nonsense to use this or the "no stars" rubbish or the fluttering flag - they're just too daft to laugh at.

    However, there are more serious items such as the Van Allen belt. I haven't seen anywhere where anyone (from either side of the debate) gives anything but broad statements about this matter. Can anyone direct me to any definitive info on this subject, as opposed to just speculative stuff or just statements saying either that it's so intense it would cook you alive or others that say it's nowhere near as intense as hoax theorists would have you believe - Both of these lines of argument are just pure drivvel. We need some definitive links on this subject. Where is the scientific info on these belts? I read on one site that a shuttle strayed into the edges of the belt and the astranauts could see the radiation with their eyes closed??? Who the hell writes this stuff! Does Nasa have anything on this incident?

    There's a lot of things that can be very easily argued either way such as why the Russians haven't blown the cover. eg Why would they - they're as deeply intrigued with space exploration as are the US & others so to blow the cover may well cause many years setback for all if folk were to be shown that we've not made anything like the advances we've already claimed. That is to say, it's in every explorer's interest to keep the hope alive.

    I also read on one website (but can't remember link at minute) about the "aircon" system employed in the spacesuit and they used the same theory to suggest how the cooling of the space craft itself was nonsense - their claim was that NASA suggested they rotated the craft slowly to allow the radiation-heated areas to cool in the shade - no conduction/convection in a vacuum??? A thought provoking article.

    Anyways, I'm in for the duration here and some serious research before I come to any conclusions, but I'm fed up with reading the trivial drivvel. Anyone got any pointers for some more serious research??? I'm not interested in stuff such as Hubble and why it will or won't pick up the landing sites. Also, the fact that NASA avoids discussing this subject goes more in it's favour than against in my own opinion because they'd have more reason to argue the toss if they hadn't done what they say. But this again is just psychological reasoning - eg could be a double bluff. More scientific info is needed - where is it?

  10. #60
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Andy, thanks for the link. Excellent!

    Paul, I'm sorry that I can't point you at any good sources right now, I'm very busy and I don't have any links at hand. I do agree with you entirely about finding actual scientific material. In the past I've been frustrated at not being able to find it - the best I can normally do is find quotes from reputable people on reputable websites.

    Here's a nice quote from Dr. James Van Allen himself (the man who discovered the radiation belts and after whom they are named). I've kept this one handy but I don't recall the source, so of course you won't know whether to trust me or not

    "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

    If you do manage to find some solid links to good material, could you please let us know? When I get time I will see if I can dig out some of my sources as well and put together a collection of reputable material.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube