Moonlanding a hoax?
- Thread starter daft
- Start date
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,217
merely giving a context of where ı had the germ of the idea of where ı had heard there were "no pictures" of the landing sites . Some guy was talking about all the conspiracies the occupied Goverment in Washington was doin' and the response was "Soon, you'll see all the footsteps."
on the other hand it's only last week that ı saw the Iron Sky , and don't ever allow me to recount why it's so not true ...
on the other hand it's only last week that ı saw the Iron Sky , and don't ever allow me to recount why it's so not true ...
Yes, much like people not giving specifics about why the Sun orbits the Earth. After all, "thousands of people" see that every day. And there is even video evidence.
That is an incorrect question, it is equal to asking whether or not i dispute the fact that God does exist. If you think such hardware does exist, you have to prove it. As for the question i have no reason to believe or disbelieve such hardware exists, because it has not be proven to exist. Well technically like i said, it is probably possible that whatever was on the Moon was manned. But no direct proof exists(unlike the unmanned missions)
Yes. Its called a "scientific method" conspiracy. Unfortunately it already has taken over the world, so you're a couple of centuries behind with the warnings.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
People did give specifics of the sun orbiting the Earth. There was very complicated math used to calculate and support the geocentric model. You can believe what you want with the moon landing, but don't drag down all of history with it.
Can't help but notice that Roller didn't tackle this one.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Let's cut right to the point here shall we: What exactly do you believe happened with regards to the Apollo program? Right now you're being incredible cryptic for no reason, so I'm left trying to argue against a strawman you refuse to flesh out.
Secondly, what exactly do you consider to be direct proof of the unmanned missions? Surely all of the same criticism and level of scepticism applies there too?
Finally, in what universe has the Apollo hardware not been proven to exist? There's countless documentaries of it being designed, built, assembled, launched, recovered, and now much of it sits in museums where you can go visit it today. To go further, many of the engineers who designed it, and the astronauts who flew it, are all on public record talking about building and flying said hardware. The volume of evidence is staggering compared to any other historical event.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
trader/warrior
Deity
"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
So what should be the prevailing hypothesis based on the available evidence to explain these strange phenomena causing reports of extremely large rockets being launched from earth and videos of men in strange suits talking about small steps and giant leaps?
With the scientific method you weigh all the evidence, not try to get one piece of ridiculously defined "direct" evidence. I think you will find that the hypothesis that manned lunar landings are a thing is a stronger one than the hypothesis that, say, the thirty years war happened.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
In addition to the other things you listed (like, being able to still see the hardware on the moon), there is also the hundreds of pounds of moon rocks they brought back which couldn't have been brought back by automated probes. There's a huge difference between what they brought back and what the Russians were able to bring back (a few grams) with their probes - the tech at the time wasn't capable of doing that without a manned mission.
So your argument is basically, you and most people don't read much so it must have been faked?
And if a lack of Russian objection wasn't enough, then the billions they spent on their own failed lunar landing program (to beat the US there) should.
Spoiler :
Fun fact: According to a documentary on the Soviet Space program I saw recently (it was a bbc program shot right when the USSR was imploding - its on youtube), the Soviet general public were not told about the moon landings. Soviet rockets scientists knew, but the general public didn't. So maybe kryiakos has a point.
He could have rehearsed it better, too.
I hadn't heard that explanation, thanks! What I had heard was that the mics (which were voice activated IIRC) didn't pick up the 'a' because it was a single syllable and was long enough to activate the mic but too short enough to not be picked up.
Literally none of this post is true.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Betchya haven't read most of 'em
All but the 16 or so I haven't gotten around to yet. Those will take another year or two.
That dude deserved it.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Oh absolutely did. Above and beyond how stupid said dude's position was, he was also harassing a 72 year man in the street. Have some damned sense.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Yes, much like people not giving specifics about why the Sun orbits the Earth. After all, "thousands of people" see that every day. And there is even video evidence.
Well, if you're going to start advocating epicycles as a logical way to go, then I think we're all even more done here than when we started.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,217
my family emigrated from Bulgaria and they remember the moon landing , at least the part Armstrong set foot , was televised live and without any adverse commentary . Bulgaria "still being more Stalinist" , ı think BBC adds 1986755th nail to its own coffin regarding "reliability" .
To be fair, there wasn't anything intrinsically illogical about epicycles; they were merely attempts to hone the predictive power of the Ptolemaic system to fit better with the more accurate astronomical data that was being gathered. They only became illogical once superior (and simpler) theories that predicted those data more plausibly became available. And even then, it's not exactly illogical to stick to the epicycle system as opposed to the Galilean or Tychonic systems; there's just no reason to prefer it.
Also useful to note that Kepler's model started (and for a while was just that, but he gave up later on due to complexities) by being a theory which would define movement of celestial bodies through the use of the Platonic Solids. So it is not at all like they scoffed at ancient math/astronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I meant it more as a tongue in cheek thing. It was really one Russian rocket scientist who said that during an interview and the BBC made no real attempt to present that as fact other than leaving it in the footage. Then again, to borrow a phrase from TF, his anecdote beats up your anecdote.
Epicycles were pretty clever explanations of what was going on, really. They were dead wrong, but they were at least rigorous attempts to understand the natural world.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,217
my anectode beats the BBC one , considering the "elitist" of the "godless" Communism had already done lots of mileage with Gagarin saying he was up there and didn't see God . Now Americans had landed on the Moon and obviously Allah , the God of Muslims -and of all , according to my Faith- was not there ...
Similar threads
