Did we ever land on the moon?

Well The United States of America supposly landed on the moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing


My question is why havent we been back?

Was it done in a studio just to make the American citizens feel like we where supuriror and could keep up with Russia in Technology.


Discuss

no, how bout you give us your side of the story as to why we didn't?

I mean really, why question such a great achievement in life? You need to let go of your insecurity with the American Governemnt and face the fact that they did achieve such glory.

And we technically did not keep up with Russian Technology. They beat us to space fair and square, but we landed on the moon first.

Reversely: why would we go back?

There's almost no point in going back now considering there's little left to do, and the space program as a whole is funded for space exploration... I'm pretty sure our moon has been thoroughly explored, and even if they weren't, unmanned probes can be sent for observation; there's almost no need for people to set foot moon, and even even less so if you consider that we could use that kind of money here on Earth ourselves.

Whether or not the landing was real or not is irrelevant at this point, because putting a man on the moon isn't hard with modern technology, the question to ask here is - why go back at all?

This whole "the moon landing was a hoax" thing is pretty annoying... the people who claim it's a conspiracy never actually saw the footage of the moon landing; it's a bit hard to simulate an atmosphere-free environment within a studio of any kind. Even if they succeeded in creating a vacuum, they'd need to simulate the gravity of the moon as well... no small feat, and if we had the technology to do THAT... there would've been theme parks based on it years ago.

Edit: just in case you thought Armstrong's team was the only one on the moon; they weren't, there were several others in the following years.

« Last edited by Fwank on Oct 30th 2007 »

no one has gone up to the moon in the footagew and everything they have shadows and the flag moves like there is wind

Yeah because it's common knowledge that object can only move when there is wind and shadows cannot exist on the moon...

No, back it up.

ok you know how you said this 'and shadows cannot exist on the moon...' look at the pics on the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

they all have shadows

When you post here in the D&D forums, we want people to use coherent sentences, complete with punctuation, proper grammar and English spelling.

While you're learning how to do that, read the rules of this board; it's fairly strict, and we don't condone simply dropping off a link or "I saw it on TV".

It's rather ironic that the bulk of the supporters of this conspiracy theory got their information from a mass media of some sort... anyway, back on topic:

No shadows on the moon? I was being sarcastic because your claim sounded so freaking stupid: There were shadows; dude there's shadows on Earth too, does that mean it's a hoax that we're here? Next time when you say something, try to explain what you mean.

For the record, I know you're trying to refer to the whole "there were spotlights in the studio" claim by conspiracy theorists, but there's no evidence in that; the evidence found in documentaries can be easily discredited with claims of cropping or photo editing.

Not to mention most documentaries made on the moon landings try to convey one point and one point only; don't believe what you see, and not that the moon landing was a hoax (not in the literal sense) if you actually read their credits, it even says they're not trying to prove it to be a hoax, they're exploring the possibilities.

Heck, most documentaries even cut off the flag planting footage on the Apollo 16 landing and say "the flag waves like there is wind"; the flag was waving because someone was holding it, and they cut the footage right after they insert the flag. The flag stops moving after it's rooted.

If it really were a hoax and they filmed it, isn't it even more peculiar that they'd actually overlook such a simple fact? We're talking NASA, the space program, guys who launches people into space (that fact is undeniable, whether or not the landing was a hoax) I'm no astronaut, but if I could spot that flag waving, they could've too, and if they were trying to fool us, they'd simple do a re-take with a rigid flag.

Seriously, the whole reason why this is even a hoax was because people didn't believe what they see on TV... so using anything shown on TV as an argument kills your credibility as a whole to begin with.

Then don't post, post deleted.

Here's the short version: You're breaking the rules, read them again and try to obey them this time.

Moon landing wasn't a hoax "just because TV said so", form your own opinions.

What I am saying:

I am not saying we didint!

But why didint we go back. There is no way we went there like 40-50 years ago and got all the information we wanted in 1 time. That is what makes me feel, like we never went there

As Fwank said there have been other landings after that one, 6 more to be correct, its just because its the first one so gets all the attention, and to be honest theres not a great deal to do on the moon no life to document and other stuff like that, so I can't imagine it would take hundreds of trips to get everything.

The thing about the shadows is, to be honest a load of rubbish, as long as there is a source of light and something to block it then a shadow will be created and seeing as the moon still gets sunlight then of course there are going to be shadows.

Now the flag thing, its not actually blowing like there is a wind, its just in one place unfurled, now seeing as the gravity is far lower on the moon then from my belief it wouldn't be enough to cause the flag to droop, so it will stay in whatever position it is placed in.

I reckon one of the main things proving it is what Fwank said about it been NASA and the fact that they are not likely to miss things that important. It may have been slightly more believeable had it been during a time of peace but it wasn't, it was during the cold war so the Russians would have been scrutnising over the footage even more than they would do normally, so it would be even more important to do it right so the chances of such mistakes would be even less.

Further proof that it was real is that 3 of the landings left behind retroreflector arrays which anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system may bounce laser beams off of these devices, verifying deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at historically documented Apollo moon landing sites.

« Last edited by super craig on Oct 30th 2007 »

I just think we have landed there but in the 60's the first one was done in teh studio to make Americans believe that are technology is as good as Russia

I've seen a documentary on this once, and experts pointed out, from both sides of the debate, good things to take int consideration. I belive they didn't, call me pessimistic is you want, that was my first impression after watching that clip with the famous saying : " that's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind " or something similar to that anyway...

« Last edited by Shadow Cast on Oct 30th 2007 »

Would you like to elaborate? You basically came in a dropped off an opinion without providing anything new.

Guys, stop doing that.

Like I've already said, the documentaries are meant to be persuasive; the fact that they weren't unbiased makes them lacking in credibility. It's also important to remember when you're watching such a documentary, all you can think about are the things right in front of you... its apparently difficult for you guys to think in reverse logic.

Edit: Craig they could have put those there with unmanned probes.

Also, the claim isn't completely invalid, it's just the evidence against an actual moon landing isn't exactly overwhelming... there's a reason why people call it "conspiracy theory", because it's still just that, a theory at best.

There certainly have been some very convincing proof that the moon landing was in-fact fake, but you guys haven't exactly made them yet... maybe you guys need to think about how the footages were shot and in what conditions they were shot at for a firm argument...

« Last edited by Fwank on Oct 30th 2007 »

OK to add onto my last post.

There was wind on the video. Look carefully at the flag it was moving. Now here comes the interesting/funny part. There is no wind on the Moon. Shadows Caused by the Sun, maybe, wind, no.

Look here's the Vid. Look carefully at 0.18 - 0.23.

It was also their plan you make sure it didn't move, and they suceeded at that except for the parts mentions above. Also you may think it's only moving because they are holding it, but the Flag itself shouldn't move...

« Last edited by Shadow Cast on Oct 30th 2007 »

Think about it, how could they fake walking on the moon, if they havent been there, and yet its the same in the other landings, if there were real. it wasn't done in a studio, other wise they wouldn't send other people up in the future, because Armstrong and his team were the best astronots ever.

Can you prove theres no wind on the moon? Somebody could have edited that clip.

Not me, scientists can and did. I have no video for that though.

*face palm*

The flag didn't move.

I'm not sure how most of you interpret this, but when I see it, it seems completely normal; the flag flails about while they're holding it and sticking it into the ground, then they stretch it out so it can be seen better. The only reason the flag wouldn't flail when the astronauts held it would be if it were made out of solid cardboard.

Get over the whole "there is wind" claim; if they did it in a studio, wind would be the first thing that shouldn't be there.

And also TM: there's no atmosphere on the moon, as a result, there isn't any air, let alone wind of any kind. In fact, this fact is supported by many footages where astronauts would kick up dust from the ground, and it settled fairly quickly as there wasn't any air to carry it around.

"wind would be the first thing that shouldn't be there"

That was their intention and like I said that was covered, but somewhere along that line you see the bottom of the flag while they're holding and straight after they hold it swaying. Now this is the bottom where they Wern't touching it.

You're going to have to rephrase there, because I can't understand the point.

It still looks perfectly normal to me... maybe you need to read over what you said, because it still looks like you're just fixated on the whole claim that there is wind, but you're not exactly comprehending how there is wind according to that particular footage.

And the thing we're looking for isn't wind, the thing we're looking for is atmosphere, in other words, we're looking to prove that there was air in that area... but even if there were, the flag would behave very similarly, which is why I find the claim very ambiguous.