Moon travel

[Jimbrown]

After the airing of a program on channel 4 on Wednesday night it sparked off a debate as to whether man has been to the moon or have we all been duped.

As I could not correct the question it should read.  
HAS MAN REALLY LANDED ON THE MOON ?  

[SteveH]

I would think that if they had not been yet, they would have sold the Movie rights for the faking by now  :D

Steve

[turtle]

Well we seen alot about the first moon walk etc but was it real? I'm not sure, there has always been a element of doult. Didn't see the program so can't comment. What were the views from the C4 program?

[Jimbrown]

Well we seen alot about the first moon walk etc but was it real? I'm not sure, there has always been a element of doult. Didn't see the program so can't comment. What were the views from the C4 program?

I missed it too turtle the tv blew up but Tim (muddy) saw it

[Pete5844]

The radiation that surrounds the earth is about 10x that of nuclear plant in meltdown.The space suits that they had could withstand this,yet these suits were never made available to people fighting nuclear meltdowns.
   Bet they wouldn't keep you warm in a Landy :lol:

[Andy.]

I don't believe they ever did, otherwise why haven't they been back since  :?

[Wanderer]

Most of the argument is based around the lighting of the photos.
It makes for interesting watching.

Ed

[thermidorthelobster]

Some of the arguments are quite good, I think.  Particularly the photos.

But surely if it had been faked, it would have been leaked long ago!

[Wanderer]

This particular conspiracy theory has been around a long time. Maybe no one's been listening or just plain who cares?

Wasn't Capricorn One a sort of mickey take of it. (1978)

Ed

[Eeyore]

I'm relativley convinced man got to the moon, but I'm open to being proved wrong on any of the below points!

if it had been faked, it would have been leaked long ago

Okay, but given any governments abilities to keep even minor misdemeanors quiet, I'm having trouble believing that something so spectacular could be kept quiet - I doubt they're that smart. I now await my arrest and the chance to proved wrong

The radiation that surrounds the earth is about 10x that of nuclear plant in meltdown.The space suits that they had could withstand this,yet these suits were never made available to people fighting nuclear meltdowns.

Ah, now there are many different types of radiation to protect from and what comes out of leaking reactors ain't necessairly what comes out the sky - cos we'd be, like, fried if it did. Chernobyl output'd huge amounts of both gamma rays and x rays which require several meters of civil engineering for protection (at least 12 in Chernobyls case :shock: ) - a few milimeters of man made fabric would not help (helloo Toastville). Space suits are also danged expensive. Using this line of logic, if the moon landings were faked then every space mission since must have been because folks have bobbed around outside space ships since, without becoming bite-sized astro-jerky.

otherwise why haven't they been back since

Maybe man didn't go back because there was no point in going back. The intercontinental whizzing contest was over and it was costing a fortune for very little practical gain. :roll:

Just my tuppence - anyone else got any thoughts?

cheers
 8)
Eeyore

[Eeyore]

I'm relativley convinced man got to the moon, but I'm open to being proved wrong on any of the below points!

if it had been faked, it would have been leaked long ago

Okay, but given any governments abilities to keep even minor misdemeanors quiet, I'm having trouble believing that something so spectacular could be kept quiet - I doubt they're that smart. I now await my arrest and the chance to proved wrong

The radiation that surrounds the earth is about 10x that of nuclear plant in meltdown.The space suits that they had could withstand this,yet these suits were never made available to people fighting nuclear meltdowns.

Ah, now there are many different types of radiation to protect from and what comes out of leaking reactors ain't necessairly what comes out the sky - cos we'd be, like, fried if it did. Chernobyl output'd huge amounts of both gamma rays and x rays which require several meters of civil engineering for protection (at least 12 in Chernobyls case :shock: ) - a few milimeters of man made fabric would not help (helloo Toastville). Space suits are also danged expensive. Using this line of logic, if the moon landings were faked then every space mission since must have been because folks have bobbed around outside space ships since, without becoming bite-sized astro-jerky.

otherwise why haven't they been back since

Maybe man didn't go back because there was no point in going back. The intercontinental whizzing contest was over and it was costing a fortune for very little practical gain. :roll:

Just my tuppence - anyone else got any thoughts?

cheers
 8)
Eeyore

[m0awb]

Using this line of logic, if the moon landings were faked then every space mission since must have been because folks have bobbed around outside space ships since, without becoming bite-sized astro-jerky.  

No they wouldn't because the radiation belt is a lot further away from Earth and closer to the moon than where they travel now. They only go far enough to put the odd satellite or two up now.

As for the program, I wasn't 100% convinced before and am even less so after seeing the evidence, most of it compelling.

Light powdery surface, no blast crater under the landing craft (LEM)? A blast strong enough to lower the LEM gently to the surface would have blasted all that dust away and left a bloody great hole. There was none just a flat powdery surface as if the LEM had been gently placed there. Either that or they took a few gardening tools with them to tidy it up a bit for the photo's :)

And that's just one of dozens of pieces of eveidence I found very convincing.

I have it taped on my Sky+ box, if I could suss out how to get it on to PC then CD/DVD I'd send anyone a copy if they wanted it.

[ian_s]

I've seen several programs on this topic before, and i think its a load of trash.

what you gotta remember about the moon is that it only has 1/6th the gravity of earth. so that means the landing craft come have landed much more easily than on the earth.

And, another thing, no one has proven the existence of the Van Allen radiation belts. its just a theory. It was known about at the time of the moon shots, so they didnt try to measure it.

And another thing. in one of the prgrams i saw, they were actually trying to disprove the conspiracy theory. one of the arguments was about the quality of the photographs. how they wouldnt have been able to get decent shots from a chest mounted camera. the team making the program then took a load of photos from a similar setup, and got lots of good pictures. it took some practice, but then surely the astronauts would have practiced before going to the moon?

alot of the arguments they put forward to prove the landings were fake are, if seen on their own, a bit flaky. in fact they are very flaky. its just that there are soo many arguments, it starts to look possible.

/rant

thats just my tuppence worth too.
actually, i want more than tuppence for that lot. you cant even buy a penny chew for tuppence these days. what with inflation and all that.

[V8MoneyPit]

I tend to have an open mind about such things. In the case of the Lunar landing, I am not convinced either way. There appear to be some quite compelling arguements  for the conspiricy theory. Mainly based around the fact they wanted desparately to beat the Russians there and desparate people do desparate things.

However, I think you could come up with arguements against just about anything if you tried hard enough.

[Luke]

It was on TV.  It must be true :D

[Thrasher]

Big consipiracy tho innit?

I mean - HOW MANY people worked at Nasa from 1950summat to now?

Hmmmmm

I'm not convinced they could fake anything to that degree!!!!

[Thrasher]

Er.....

How is "Has man really walked on the moon or is space travel just a big con" a yes/no question?

*confused in Northampton*

[Luke]

Er.....

How is "Has man really walked on the moon or is space travel just a big con" a yes/no question?

*confused in Northampton*

I wondered that myself!

[Wanderer]

I'm not averse to They didn't go there in 69 but did get there in later attempts (for want of a better word).
Too much was riding on beating the Russians for America to lose the race.

Ed

[Dangermouse]

In answer Thrasher YES  :D

DM   :?

[Wanderer]

No No No No! Yes!

Ed
If you've not watched the Vicar of Dibley you'll not get it.

[Dangermouse]

No no no Yes you  :)

DM  :)

[Dangermouse]

Err Yes yes yes No i err yes err no err I KNOW WOT I MEAN i think  :shock:

DM  :)

[Wanderer]

His best line was

No no no no no no parking in the top field.

So is that no parking in the top field or no no parking in the top field.

 :lol:

Ed
 I suppose on topic it would be no no man went to the moon.

[Dangermouse]

Yes yes no


DM  :P

[Dangermouse]

No no yes  :?

DM  :)

[Dangermouse]

Err pass the duchy on left hand side ?? i give up!
But i think we have the base of the next govenment sust  :shock:

DM  :)

[Jimbrown]

Er.....

How is "Has man really walked on the moon or is space travel just a big con" a yes/no question?

Sorry I did spot the mistake but could not delete it but the question is simple, do you believe man has been to the moon, yes/no, if you could put it right Neil  :) would really appreciate it

[Eeyore]

But if no, then, maybe, what if it could possibly, but then again it should, but only when if, apart from those moments when, if, not withstanding those that should, could would, if, but yes when and if only in the circumstances that should, moreover, and I.....er...........I......er.......... :-k

.......what was he asking??? :-s

Eeyore

[Andy.]

Check out some of the pictures for yourselves.

http://www.expeditionexchange.com/nasa/

Nice 4x4 site too  :D