StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I don't know if this has been discussed as yet (I remember the "Aldrin hits a conspiracy theorist" thread). There seem to be a lot of arguments for against man actually landing on the moon. It has been weighing on my mind quite a bit of late, and I was thinking, what does everyone here think?

Hah, landed on the moon? Nobody did that, it is a conspiracy by THE MAN!

Seriously, Ganfalf, this is conspiracy theory nonsense. FOX rehashed a conspiracy theory from the 60's era and it seems to have taken off again, after they aired their special.

There are roughly 900 pounds of moon rocks that were brought back by the astronauts. If they are fakes, then they have managed to fool geologists from around the world. Also, countries like Russia were monitoring the radio signals used to communicate with the astronauts. They knew which direction the signals were coming from. If the signals were here on Earth, the soviets would have blown the cover off of this in a hurry.

Superman wrote:Seriously, Ganfalf, this is conspiracy theory nonsense. FOX rehashed a conspiracy theory from the 60's era and it seems to have taken off again, after they aired their special.

There are roughly 900 pounds of moon rocks that were brought back by the astronauts. If they are fakes, then they have managed to fool geologists from around the world. Also, countries like Russia were monitoring the radio signals used to communicate with the astronauts. They knew which direction the signals were coming from. If the signals were here on Earth, the soviets would have blown the cover off of this in a hurry.

Well, duh, all the geologists are the puppets of THE MAN, and the Commies were in on it with the Illuminati and Freemasons, all controlling the world from the secret base on Planet X.:roll:

Nathan F wrote:Hah, landed on the moon? Nobody did that, it is a conspiracy by THE MAN!

"Brother can I get a list of words that set off these little episodes....."

Superman wrote:Seriously, Ganfalf, this is conspiracy theory nonsense. FOX rehashed a conspiracy theory from the 60's era and it seems to have taken off again, after they aired their special.

There are roughly 900 pounds of moon rocks that were brought back by the astronauts. If they are fakes, then they have managed to fool geologists from around the world. Also, countries like Russia were monitoring the radio signals used to communicate with the astronauts. They knew which direction the signals were coming from. If the signals were here on Earth, the soviets would have blown the cover off of this in a hurry.

Well that's good to hear, there was a FOX special on here a while ago, and a friend of mine has since become convinced of the fact it is a conspiracy. I just wanted to hear good arguments against it being a conspiracy so I can stick it to him.

I have no doubts whatsoever that man landed on the moon, but I do believe that there was a plan in place (even if it was never implemented) to cover up a failed landing, or the failure to broadcast signals from the moon.

Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax from Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site.

Gandalf wrote:I don't know if this has been discussed as yet (I remember the "Aldrin hits a conspiracy theorist" thread). There seem to be a lot of arguments for against man actually landing on the moon. It has been weighing on my mind quite a bit of late, and I was thinking, what does everyone here think?

Fuck FOX and that fucking conspiracy TV show that duped people. We landed on the Moon and that is FACT.

weemadando wrote:I have no doubts whatsoever that man landed on the moon, but I do believe that there was a plan in place (even if it was never implemented) to cover up a failed landing, or the failure to broadcast signals from the moon.

Actualy the plan was not to cover up any faliure, rather to openly admit them. They even had a speech written for Nixon in regards to the crews being stuck on the moon and not being able to lift off.

Gandalf wrote:I don't know if this has been discussed as yet (I remember the "Aldrin hits a conspiracy theorist" thread). There seem to be a lot of arguments for against man actually landing on the moon. It has been weighing on my mind quite a bit of late, and I was thinking, what does everyone here think?

Yes, a lot of arguments but if you examine those arguments you'll find that they are nothing more than ramblings made by people who simply don't understand what they are talking about. Basically, the foundation of most of their arguments is "Well it's this way on Earth so it should also be this way on the moon"

Did anyone see the program on the Moon Landings that Johnathan Frakes presented. He made some good arguements in the program but most of them are based on the fact that there is suposed to be a high radiation field in high orbit arround Earth.

Darth Pounder wrote:Did anyone see the program on the Moon Landings that Johnathan Frakes presented. He made some good arguements in the program but most of them are based on the fact that there is suposed to be a high radiation field in high orbit arround Earth.

Actually he didn't make any good arguments. Once again he or whoever wrote his lines was talking about something that they didn't understand.

I just watched that FOX special last night. I have not a good laugh like that in a long time. Basically all their "arguments" were just appeal to authorities and arguements from ignorance fallacies.

My favorite "argument" of theirs though, was the one about the LEM. After they showed the tape of Aldrin crashing the atmosphiric LEM, they said "If the LEM crashed on the controlled surface of the Earth, how could they have expected it to work on the Lunar surface?". I was laughing my ass of at that.

Everyone needs to read that article by Phil Plait. You also need to get his book, Bad Astronomy. It has a nifty little thing about "What Hollywood Needs to Know About Space" or something like that.

Darth Pounder wrote:Did anyone see the program on the Moon Landings that Johnathan Frakes presented. He made some good arguements in the program but most of them are based on the fact that there is suposed to be a high radiation field in high orbit arround Earth.

There is a high radiation field in orbit around Earth, the van Allen belts. But you have to 1) have absolutely no protection from it and 2) stay there a long time in order to get a harmful dose of the radiation, and the astronauts had both protection and didn't stay in the belts long.

Durran Korr wrote:

Darth Pounder wrote:Did anyone see the program on the Moon Landings that Johnathan Frakes presented. He made some good arguements in the program but most of them are based on the fact that there is suposed to be a high radiation field in high orbit arround Earth.

There is a high radiation field in orbit around Earth, the van Allen belts. But you have to 1) have absolutely no protection from it and 2) stay there a long time in order to get a harmful dose of the radiation, and the astronauts had both protection and didn't stay in the belts long.

I`ve heard some says the protection is not thick enough to really protect the astronauts.

Montcalm wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:

Darth Pounder wrote:Did anyone see the program on the Moon Landings that Johnathan Frakes presented. He made some good arguements in the program but most of them are based on the fact that there is suposed to be a high radiation field in high orbit arround Earth.

There is a high radiation field in orbit around Earth, the van Allen belts. But you have to 1) have absolutely no protection from it and 2) stay there a long time in order to get a harmful dose of the radiation, and the astronauts had both protection and didn't stay in the belts long.

I`ve heard some says the protection is not thick enough to really protect the astronauts.

Then you heard lies. Go to Phil Plait's page for the truth.

Aren't the VARB made up of ionised particles (probably alphas) ?? if thats so, a tinfoil.. helmet.. would be sufficient.

oi, more credence to the fools. but standard NBC protection protects against alpha particles. The real killer is the gamma rays from the sun.

The problem with that show is that they get a parade of "experts" to come and support their case.

If a supposed photographic expert comes along and tells us this photograph is a fake for the following reasons people are inclined to think "well this guy is an expert so he knows best" instead of realising that the expert is using flimsy reasoning in order to get a cheque of the film makers.

I seem to remember a Russian scientist (I believe it was that fox special but I'm not sure) explaining how the levels of radiation in space are too high for anyone to survive without several feet of lead, so then people think "well this guy has done experiments and proved it so it must be true", the problem is of course is that they are lying but people don't think to question this and instead go along with it until another batch of experts come along and show how the other set are utterly wrong.

TheDarkling wrote:The problem with that show is that they get a parade of "experts" to come and support their case.

If a supposed photographic expert comes along and tells us this photograph is a fake for the following reasons people are inclined to think "well this guy is an expert so he knows best" instead of realising that the expert is using flimsy reasoning in order to get a cheque of the film makers.

I seem to remember a Russian scientist (I believe it was that fox special but I'm not sure) explaining how the levels of radiation in space are too high for anyone to survive without several feet of lead, so then people think "well this guy has done experiments and proved it so it must be true", the problem is of course is that they are lying but people don't think to question this and instead go along with it until another batch of experts come along and show how the other set are utterly wrong.

Even more so when one considers the fact that the US and the Soviet Union were pretty much in competition over the space race.....if there was actually credible evidence that the US faked the moon landing, you can bet your first born that they would have blown the whole thing open.

If a supposed photographic expert comes along and tells us this photograph is a fake for the following reasons people are inclined to think "well this guy is an expert so he knows best" instead of realising that the expert is using flimsy reasoning in order to get a cheque of the film makers.

It's amazing how simple the debunking of this guy's claims is. He claims that the astronauts wouldn't have been able to use the cameras well enough to take very good photos; well, it turns out that the astronauts probably took a hell of a lot more photos than have been published, and NASA only chose to publish the best-looking ones (for obvious reasons).

I seem to remember a Russian scientist (I believe it was that fox special but I'm not sure) explaining how the levels of radiation in space are too high for anyone to survive without several feet of lead, so then people think "well this guy has done experiments and proved it so it must be true", the problem is of course is that they are lying but people don't think to question this and instead go along with it until another batch of experts come along and show how the other set are utterly wrong.

It was a Russian cosmonaut, and it proved nothing. All the guy did was say that the Russian scientists were concerned about how to protect the cosmonauts from radiation while passing through the van Allen belts. Well, NO FUCKING SHIT; of course they were concerned about this, and so were the American scientists. Fox was really desperate for material with this special; they used the fact that the Mars landing scenes in Capricorn One, a movie made 10 years after the moon landing, looked so similar to the moon landing scenes as proof that the moon landing was faked.

It didn't happen, it was all a set.


http://www.moontruth.com

SEE FOR YOURSELF!

It's amazing how simple the debunking of this guy's claims is. He claims that the astronauts wouldn't have been able to use the cameras well enough to take very good photos; well, it turns out that the astronauts probably took a hell of a lot more photos than have been published, and NASA only chose to publish the best-looking ones (for obvious reasons).

True enough but Fox neglects to put up any counter points because it is not in their interests to do so, basically you can put down people actually buying that it was faked to Fox's wish to get people to tune in.

It's not the worst crime Fox have ever commited though, sigh SAAB was a good show .

kojikun wrote:Aren't the VARB made up of ionised particles (probably alphas) ?? if thats so, a tinfoil.. helmet.. would be sufficient.

oi, more credence to the fools. but standard NBC protection protects against alpha particles. The real killer is the gamma rays from the sun.

Yeah, they are trapped by the magnetic field... Basically part of Earth's defenses against the Sun.
There are a few stories of astronauts "feeling" the radiation passing through them when the Sun is in one of its moods.

But, if they were so dangerous, or there isn't enough protection against it, why haven't the Russian astronauts all died of cancer?
Most of them beat several records of staying in space, specially on the Mir. Unless, that station never went up of course, and it was part of the conspiracy. (hummmmm....)