One small step for man, one giant leap backwards for mankind

[El Koeno]

Grishnash: I don't like it when people use other people's arguments as jokes. But I think you made it a little too easy on them by maintaining your position, while on page one of this thread it should have been clear you couldn't convince anyone. If you wanted to disagree agreeable, you could have just stopped posting in the thread.

And although I'm skeptical when people announce imminent pwnage, Sharwoord did an excellent job. Grishnash got pwned so hard, his mama felt it.

 

[Moggy]

Its obvious we faked the moon landings because if we had gone then we would all have our own rocket ships by now. Have you never seen the Jetsons?

 

[Sharwood]

Its obvious we faked the moon landings because if we had gone then we would all have our own rocket ships by now. Have you never seen the Jetsons?

Come on, The Jetsons is completely unrealistic. There's no way women will be that 'well-behaved' in the future.

 

[Grishnash]

I am sorry it took so long to reply, but I have been very busy with stuff that does not relate to the moon. I can see you said pwnage but I thought when someone got pwned it was because they couldn't possibly reply with a logical response.

Watch and marvel, as I pwn Grishnash's arguments, in every conceivable way.


They had the technology to make it to the moon. Hell, even Russia had the technology, just not the engineering skill to put it together. And why would they give a dman about a "moral victory?" The whole point of the space race was the military applications of the technologies developed, and the moon landing was no exception. The prestige was a bonus, not the goal.

Technolpwnage.

The crowning achievement of human kind, the greatest boast of the species; the event in human history most associated with pride in our own accomplishment: Landing on the moon.

Twenty years later and years behind schedule, the same space program couldn’t put into earth orbit a telescope with a lens that focused, and yet two decades earlier a mission one hundred times more complicated worked on it’s first occasion...
Yes, we can agree that they did have the technology to make it to the moon. To what decree is something else. They both had the technology to send unmanned probes to the moon, but both lacked the capacity to send humans to the moon. Which an American astronaut said, I'm paraphrasing here, but it went something like "We are ten years from going to the moon" two years before the moon landings.
There is a fundamental difference between sending a robot to the moon to perform task such as collecting moon rocks, and sending men to the moon to plant a flag.
There are whole other chapters to look at, and ground to cover when it comes to humans, a whole new story. One example being Mars - we send probes there to collect Mars rock, take photos and other such task, but we lack the ability to send a man there.

Let us not forget, one of the many obstacles in the way of the moon landing that there is: the radiation belt that surrounds the earth that is dangerous to man, that recently, even NASA has admitted as far more dangerous than first thought, and now they’re inspecting it to see just how dangerous. But I do recall someone saying that the belt was the reason the Russians didn't go to the moon.
In 1962, the Van Allen belts were amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion, that's just four years before the moon landings. Now, did we have the tech to march through a belt of the same stuff, just more amplified, our most powerful weapons unleashes?

Beginning at an altitude of 1000 miles and extending an additional 25,000 miles lay lethal bands of radiation called, that's right, the Van Allen belts. Every space mission in history with humans on board both United States and Soviet Union, from the first in 1961 to 2001 has been well below this deadly radiation field, Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz, Sky Lab, the Space Shuttle, all maintained altitudes well below 1000 miles.
All except Apollo...
The more experienced Russians spent 100 hours in space for every 20 hours of the US. In order to survive this hour and a half journey through this radiation field necessary to reach the moon and return. Solid lead shielding between the astronauts and the exposure outside would be required.
The mammoth Saturn five rocket used by Apollo was already thirty-five stories tall, and weight as much as a battleship(very heavy), to add additional tonnage in the form of a lead barrier completely surrounding the crew members would have made it impossible for the vehicle to get off the ground. That is why the soviets, though more advanced, only sent an unmanned probe to the moon.
The Apollo spacecrafts narrowest shielding was less than one-eighth of an inch of light aluminum. In 1998, the space shuttle flew to an altitude of 350 miles, one of it’s highest altitudes ever, hundreds of miles below the beginning of a field of radiation that was so severe that the astronauts inside of their shielded spacecraft and inside of their shielded spacesuits saw flashes of light with their eyes shut that they described as shooting stars, due to radiation penetrating first the shuttles shielding than their spacesuits shielding then their skulls and finally the retinas of their closed eyes, as a result CNN issued the following report, noting NASAs unpredicted surprise: “The radiation belts surrounding earth may be more dangerous for space walking astronauts then previously believed. Scientists say the phenomenon known as the Van Allen belts can spawn killer electrons when the earth magnetic fields changes, these electrons that are being studied could have an important effect, not only on satellites which has happened in the past but could also effect the astronauts by creating large douses of radiation that could influence their health, the electrons can penetrate through various materials, including spacesuits and can pass through, in fact, the walls of a space station and can create high charges deep inside these objects.”
If we had already gone to the moon, why did this surprise NASA? Had they not investigated it first? A common protocol exercised in everything from covert-ops to everyday life, is you never send a man in blind. Armstrong and his men at the veryest of least should have died by now by cancer.

Now, about war and moral. The sword is not only the last, but the least used weapon in wars. The winning of a moral victory in the Cold War was just as good as winning a proxy war. If a side was to badly lose moral in the confrontation, then their people will slowly stop supporting it, which will be bad for any war-machine, no matter the size, or what age they’re in. So, yes, moral was a key point in the cold war and both sides tried to top one another in this section as well as others. It is kind of like having a gun without ammo. As long as you look like you can, it doesn't matter if you can or not, as long as your followers don't know. People, in this case, nations, would be more willing to follow the guy with the gun then not. The gun is moral, whoever has the bigger one, has more followers; it is as simple is that.

No, it didn't occur to us, because we're not giant effing morons. And yes, it is easy to bounce signals off of objects, now. The technology to do that on such a scale simply didn't exist then. He doesn't have to show you the soviets admitting it, you have to show him, and everyone else, them denying it. That's how it works when you're using bullcrap as your primary argument.

Cow manpwnage.

I think we both would need to display our sources rather then just say we have them in this case. Thus, both arguments fall short when trying to place people behind their points, unless we put down names, which neither side has.

The Cold War was a geopolitical contest between the two strongest nations on Earth, both with their own security as the primary goal. Morality had not a damn thing to do with it, except in the case of dealing with Third World countries, and they were far more concerned with who could help arm and feed them than with who was standing on the moon. And how exactly is it a moral loss if the other side doesn't make it either? The Yanks could just say JFK's death set them back.

Cold Wpwnage.

You cannot brag about getting a new car to a person with a car. That, my friend, is how one side not making it is a moral loss to that side. The moral blow from America landing on the moon would have been a lot less damaging if Russia were to place a man on the moon within two years, which they haven't within forty, and that alone should rise questions. Demoralize a foe, and you needn’t worry, no matter how large or overwhelming. If they are without moral, they are without power.
And the best way to demoralize a foe is to grain a moral victory over them. I don't see how JFKs death would be any kind of set back, and even if they did, the Russians could say Stalin’s death was also a setback.

That was a typo, I meant satellite dish. But now that you mention it, yes, the observatory also witnessed them waltzing around up there and planting the flag. Pwned you are, hmmm?

Somehow, I don't find that bankable. Was this an independent observatory? It sure wasn't Russian, was it? How many people were there that saw this? Was it recorded in anyway? And how long after did they say they saw the man on the moon. And did they really look through a telescope and stare at the moon? And heres just one of the many plus to going back to the moon, putting up an Lunar Observatory, which would be a major good thing for scientists and astronomers for every nation. NASA and other organizations making billions a year would love one of those and find it not out of reach at all.

Dude, that story's been discredited a thousand times. I see a cat in my flat every night, and I don't have one. Footstool looks a lot like one in the dark though.

And no, only that dopey biatch Una Ronald saw the coke bottle. Trust me, I kind of live here, that story didn't appear in the newspaper until 25 years after the moon landing, and no-one corroborated. And while we're on the subject of the moon landing, Australia actually has the original moon landing footage, unedited still here. One of the advantages of being the people who picked up and broadcast the thing. I've seen it, on an old 8mm - whatever it was - projector. Guess what? No coke bottle. Kung Fu - The Pwnage Continues. Man that series sucked.

Somehow, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I take it your not a fan of hers.
Several other viewers had seen the bottle and I don't think twenty people all see cats in the night that are really footstools all at once. Now, if the story really was published twenty years later, then ask yourselves this, why did it take so long? And if it really had no merit at all, why publish it in the first place? Australia is an American ally, and in no way would want to discredit something like the moon landings. Many means could have been employed to keep the story out of the papers, and many more to keep the people from talking. Very easily they could have contacted the people, after they got word that someone saw the coke bottle, and bribed, convinced or threatened them to keep them quite, and the newspaper, same thing to keep them from publishing such a story. And I guess it finally got out after 20 years, only to easily get discredited and shot out of the sky before the west ever hears of it. It would be simply too easy to say that something is the original. It could easily have been switched over the years, or, more likely, never have been the original in the first place. Unless you have the thing in your basement in a lock box that you actually taped yourself during the thing, it could still be questioned. Unless, there was proof to back up that it really is the original, then yeah.

Lots of people rebuke the moon landing, nothing dangerous about it at all. Unless you think the US will nuke Moscow if Putin says "Lulz, I's proved youse dint land on the moon yo." Just don't do it to Buzz Aldron's face, he'll pwn you good.

First off, "prominent", that means anyone who could say that and not have people laugh in his face. Like any high up NASA or prominent European Astronomer. Second, do you know what they do to people who speak up against classified stuff? They most often get shot. No crap. Unless they know they can get real good protection, they will not speak up, simple as that. I know this soldier who didn't really like the Iraq war much, he had... stuff... and was going to speak out about it, let's just say I don't know him anymore. (Not being disclosed)

No, in court they'd laugh you out of it. I've already explained the physical evidence, as have others. But you've just dug a giant hole for yourself. You see, I have no physical evidence that my mother gave birth to me. None at all. No doctors were present, just other family members. By your logic, I simply appeared out of thin air, and my mother and her family invented some wild tale that I was born. You took that to court, they'd laugh at you too, because there is far more supportive evidence - namely, me - than there is disportive evidence, that is, the lack of medical professionals and video footage.

Pwned-natal.

Yet, you have no physical evidence that cannot be questioned one way or another. Solid proof seems to be lacking. Yes, I will admit the 'hoax' side is lacking physical evidence but if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this chat. And the fact that we are having this chat is proof that the physical evidence you have shown so far has been questioned and thus fails to make a case. And to go on your... example, I would not be 100% sure she was your mother if that was the case. And to give you another, uh, dumb example; if I were to see a ten year old girl(or)boy with a wedding ring on his ring finger, and sure would not jump to say he is married even if his mother and father say so.

 

[Grishnash]

Weaker because it would be far more impressive, technologically, politically, logistically, etc., for the US to have faked this, than for it to be true. If the moon landing was faked, it is a hoax involving literally thousands of people, across the world in all walks of life. AND NOT ONE OF THEM HAS CRACKED! No selling the story, no deathbed confessions, nothing.

The evidence supports the fact that we landed on the moon. Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is usually the correct one. Ergo, WE LANDED ON THE FRIGGING MOON!!! PWNED!!!

Neil is not dead so, so much for his deathbed confession.
I say this for the last time: It would not take even hundred people to pull this off, not even. I.E. you were not there, you probably didn't watch the moon landing live, and you do not work at NASA, but here you are saying that we landed on the moon and defending that fact. Why? Because the newspapers and history books and your parents said we landed on the moon. Why? Because NASA said we landed on the moon. Why? Because someone said we landed on the moon. Why? Because we landed on the moon... If you say so.
If NASA were to say right now, that they had found life on Mars, you would believe them and most likely go out and buy a gun or start building a shelter. Sometimes, something is just too simple to be real

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one." - "By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell -- and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed." - "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep repeating it, and eventually they will believe it” - "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: But strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" - "A person is smart, people are dumb, stupid, panicky animals and you know it."

Don't follow the path of least resistance; even if it is backed by facts, the other path may reveal shocking truths. And if the moon landings were that simple, why didn't the Russians just go all the way when they went into space as the first people to do so?
It was the 35th President of the United States: JFK, a man of political, not scientific background, that set the irrevocable goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. This was just days after America’s first astronaut had spent a mere 16 minutes in space. Not even achieving a signal obit around the earth. The technology necessary to launch the massive Saturn five rocket and an intercontinental basaltic missile are 95% similar. When the Soviet Union launched mankinds first satellites, Sputnik in 1957, there was grave concern that they had mastered space ahead of the United States and might use this advantage to launch a first nuclear strike from an orbit high above North America. When they also put the first animal in space, then the first man in space, then achieved the first space walk, the first crew of three and the first ever two simultaneously orbiting spacecrafts, concern turned to fear and then horror as America watched their communist counterpart achieve all these first with no hope in sight of ever catching up. If it wasn’t possible to better the soviets in the space race, which was really a race of technological armament, what could be done? How could America offset the threat of superior weaponry, and deflect the massive moral victories the Soviets were grabbing? Throughout the history of rivalry and war, astute generals of lesser armies then their counterparts have used deceit and misinformation as a method to achieve victory. In WWII, for example, columns of inflatable tanks were placed at locations a far from Normandy, to draw German forces away from the real location of invasion. The Star-wars missile defense program rigged tests to make it seem more advanced then it really was, that’s the conclusion of the general accounting office.
The aim was to fool the Soviet Union about US military readiness during the cold war. But certainly it was not possible to fool just the soviets about US strategic capability in the 1960s, while somehow informing two hundred million Americans of the truth secretly, in order for them to believe the United States had the capability to go the moon, everyone would have to believe it. Furthermore, the pride of a nation was at stake and the goal of a martyr, not to mention the growing unrest domestically of a government throwing tens of thousands of lives away in a foreign war riddled with contradiction, in addition, the Apollo program had already spent billions of dollars. If it failed to achieve its goal with such an investment it would indeed be a large and bitter pill for the taxpayers to swallow.
The cost of the program, who’s sole goal was to be the first to plant a flag on the lifeless rock just outside the earth, if adjusted for inflation to the twenty-first century was 135 billion dollars with a profit margin of just seven percent this would be equal to over 9 billion profit. Going to the privileged contractors chosen by their friends at NASA, if the machinery was in fact only achieving earth orbit as other earlier missions had already done, then the completion and functionally of the other components would not have been as important and even more profit would have been made. 135 billion dollars could feed two million people for their entire lives, it could also buy two million two bedroom houses… yet how could such an undertaking be kept secret? And for such a long time? To the latter, one needs only to remember that an unsolved riddle six years older, the assassination of president Kennedy, still daunts the minds of a vast majority of Americans, as apparent of a conspiracy as his assassin being assassinated himself, the truth of the matter has still escaped history. In keeping a secret of the magnitude of the Apollo missions being fraudulently created, one turns to the Manhattan Project for comparison, surreptitiously creating the first nuclear bomb during the early to mid 1940s, involved one hundred twenty nine thousand five hundred people over a three year period, yet the secret did not get out, and even now there are things that have yet to be revealed. A quarter century later the art and technology of espionage inevitably improved narrowing dramatically the number of players in the know of a large clandestine operation.

Just one year before the first mission to the moon, NASA launched the TETR-A satellite specifically designed to simulate flight data coming from the moon. So that the ground crews could rehearse the landing, much as the astronauts did in their own simulations, had it not supposedly fallen back to earth all that would’ve been needed during the actual flight would be a repeat of one of these computer programs with a few original variations, transmitted to the satellite for rebroadcast to Houston, scores of computers and their deceived operators on the ground would then receive prearranged information, including the alleged location, altitude and fuel consumption of the space craft as if it was descending to the moon surface. If the soviets tried to find the actual location of an Apollo crew in the hundred of thousands of miles surrounding the earth and the moon if would be tantamount to trying to find a rowboat in the Atlantic Ocean…

The fact that the Apollo program was so departmentalized, with varies construction and test sites around the country, meant that only a few people saw the whole picture and for the first time ever, there was no independent press coverage of such a historical event, whatever pictures and sounds were distributed to the public was strictly controlled and previewed by the federal government, they were then disseminated unchecked. Who would realize that the unthinkable, was not only possible, but absolutely true.

And what of the photographs, what do they tell us? Few pictures were found, quite surprising considering the historical significant of the event. These very photographs are the same ones circulated year after year, on anniversary commemorations and what not. It is estimated that the first sixty minutes on the moon, motivated by the tenuous nature of the circumstances, may more exposures could and would have been expediently taken. Also surprising is the scarcity of photographs of the mission’s chief pioneer, Neil Armstrong. The greatest achievement in human history and of the man who’s first step on the moon echoed around the world, dawning a new age of scientific enlightenment, there is only one full body picture of him on the moon, besides a ghostly reflection off of another astronauts helmet visor. Perhaps he feared liability, should the whole conundrum later become unraveled, perhaps he has forgotten that he had attested to the authenticity of the event with his signature on a plank, engraved by the federal government. In fact, in more then thirty years after the event, aside from NASA’s initial press conference, and the occasional brief anniversary remarks where few questions were permitted, Armstrong has never given one on camera interview to anyone, ever.
From an analytical standpoint, photographic anomalies have to be sort out with an understanding of lighting and shadows. The most straight forward is simple, when objects are lit solely by the sun, as all of the pictures on the moon were said to be, after all lighting equipment was not only impractical, it was unnecessary in bright sunlight, then all shadows, regardless of the landscape, would run parallel with one another and never intersect as shown by one of the photos, in some seldom seen photographs, obtained form a rarely used auxiliary NASA archival site, it is clear that these pictures were lit with artificial light, There are shadows which are cast at difference angles, evidence that a second light source was used, in addition the sun would not cause a isolated hot spot like the one in a few of the pictures, only an artificial light would.
Again, and again intersecting shadows and other hot spots are found in photos of the moon, it is simply impossible for these picture to have been taken with sun light on the moon. In some pictures, shadows are shown to be as black as pitch and yet another picture, completely in shadow, the astronaut in it is lit up like a Christmas tree. How can this be?
Or the one on the shadow side of the lunar module, you can see the module and it’s details clearly. In a magnification of an Apollo photograph, a rock very likely a prop because of the crease in it, is categorized with the letter C on the top left corner, however, in later releases of the same picture the letter is gone, probably air brushed out. In yet another photo a crosshair, which was burned directly into the firm plate and thus should always appear on top the objects in the photograph, appears behind the object in it, clearly revealing a deposit of two pictures into one. And someone apparently forgot to create a burn crater underneath the lunar models ten thousand pound thrust engine, despite the fact that during ground tests, there was a real concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. In some enlargements it looks as though the lunar module was simply placed there.
Not even one speck of moon dust on the landing pod. As a result, all subsequent flights had to have the same discrepancy, which was explained away by the effect of no atmosphere. And what about stars? On the moon, with no atmosphere, they must’ve been quite a sight to behold. Yet there is seldom any mention of them, if ever, by any of the astronauts on any of the missions, which is crazy, considering if New York ever had a pollution free night sky, the stars would be on every newspapers in the nation.
Undoubtedly creating a mule with all the constellations probably placed in the sky would’ve been virtually impossible to create accurately, much less realistically. A competent amateur astronomer would’ve been able to call attention to the slightest error in measurement. The answer: not to talk about the stars. Ever.
In their post-flight press conference, it was the only question to which Neil Armstrong responded with an absence of memory.
“When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars and the solar corona in spite of the glare?” was the question.
Neil Armstrong: “We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon... by eye, without looking through the optics... I don’t recall, during the period of time we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.”
Years later, though, Michael Collins would remember seeing the elusive stars and wrote about the men expeditions to the moon. It seems his memory improved the older he got.
Why don’t stars appear in any of the photographs? Simply because the proper, mostly closed exposure setting for the cameras iris, set that way to compensate for the bright sunlight on the lunar surface, completely diminished the faintness, relatively distant specks of the miniature light. This answer is true. It does not however, explain why they never took any pictures of the stars by themselves. With an exposure setting perfect for them. While they took three automobiles to the moon, they never took a photographic telescope, had they do so, they would have been able to see farer into the universe then had ever before been realized. If they had taken a telescope, and were not actually on the moon they would of have to concoct undiscovered galaxies that might one day prove to be non-existent.
The cost of the three moon rovers in twenty-first century currency, nearly sixty million dollars… each.
Where was all this money going?
Then there’s the flag, blowing in the wind, at least twice. Blowing, by the looks of it, from a wind current not by any vacuum effect. On the atmosphereless moon we can only guess that most of the mission was staged inside for fear of possible aerial or satellite reconnaissance from an unfriendly nation. The backpacks, designed for one-sixth gravity must of have the cooling systems removed, to allow for movement without falling over. With very near and hot studio lighting that left one hot astronaut inside, assuming that it was the astronauts inside, after all, their faces were always covered. The necessary mammoth amounts of air conditioning were probably responsible for the air current. In a rare clip obtained decades ago and never re-released with the inevitably increase of experience and scrutiny, shows the flag blowing, by what could only, with logic, be said to be the wind.
We all know that the moon has little gravity, and to demonstrate this one-sixth gravity of the moon, a bouncy, floaty feel to the astronaut’s movements would be similarly achieved with relative simplicity: Slow motion. The scenes as they aired thirty years ago looked at with the speed doubled, it becomes discernable that they are in fact in earth’s gravity and are no more leaving the ground then they would on earth. It is clear from rarely seen, colored television pictures that the crew of Apollo 11 brought a high resolution color video camera with them on the mission, yet the only pictures broadcasted live from the moon surface were from a low definition black and white camera, in fact the networks complained because in addition to this they were forced to shoot the images second generation off of a projection TV of the technology of thirty years ago and were not even allowed to take a direct feed, which farther degraded the quality and clarity of the images. Perhaps this was precisely what NASA and the federal government had in mind after all it was a first, regardless of where they were. Better to open up their mission with fuzzy pictures and numerous blackouts rather then show too much revealing detail of a false scene that was yet unproven.

The right? Yes. Any possible reason? No. It's like debating whether or not not Kennedy is dead. Of course he is. You can debate the exact details, but not that it happened, because of the conclusive proof. As in the moon landing. Pwned!

Reason? Was there any reason to debate if or not the atom was the smallest thing in the universe? It was a scientific fact that the atom was the smallest for some time. Even facts could be wrong, yes, they are proven time and again but nothing is for certain. And there is a difference between JFK and Apollo. If JFK was shot where there was no one around but one camera guy that broadcasted it around the world, then I would not find it stupid to debate if or not he's dead.

Another wise man once said: "Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" You would be said follower.

My personal favourite. Obi-Wan Kenpwnage!

Wrong. I look and question, not do I follow. You follow whoever tells you to follow them, no matter who or what. The follower would be the one who wouldn't even question the moon landing because he was told it happened. The leader investigates and digs deep to see if the moon landing really happened, or if it could even happened. The follower would believe what he's been told and defend that point without question, and in some cases bitterly and angrily. The leader would hear both sides of the tale, learn both points-of-view, and not condescend or blast either one no matter which is right, he may try and enlightened them, both with his head and not fist.
The Leader follows no one, and makes his own truth. The follower takes the truth offered to him and runs with it.
The leader would not sink to the level of name-calling when someone questions his truth before him, nor condemn him is stupid. No, he would listen, and try to understand that persons point of view, and take it into consideration as he relays his own without putting the other as outright wrong nor insulting the mans intelligence. That reply you posted seemed angry and condescending, if this debate has augured you, then I suggest you calm down before you reply. Like driving, don't drive if your mad, it will cloud your judgment.

Dude, if you were Neil Armstrong, I'd let you sodomise me. I mean that. Because if Neil Armstrong is on an internet gaming messageboard, impersonating a Russian arguing against the greatest thing he'd ever done in his own life, then I'm a raging homosexual. Hompwned.

I am not impersonating a Russian, nor am I Russian. Matter of fact, I don't live near Russia and I really don't think even my great grandparents were Russian. And it is good to know that you would listen to Armstrong, who I am not and didn't say I was, because if you needed more then just him to convince you the moon landing was fake, then you would be.... Narrow minded.

And given the evidence they had available to them at the time, the conclusions they reached were logical, just as the conclusion that Mars had water on it was logical in the 19th century. But when knowledge progresses to the level that such theories are proved correct, they are forgotten. As this theory will be, when we start colonising space, and I unfreeze you from your cryochamber and personally frigging show you the damn landing site.

Running out of ways to say pwned.

But wait, who will unfreeze you? Unless you're going to live to a thousand, pretty old by then. And if you have a time machine I will buy it from you for ANY amount of money . Mars does have water on it, frozen yes but water. And by that time the United States would of had a google chances to go up to the moon and plant all the things they would need to make it appear we were on the moon. Even now we can make and change history, plant stuff and make it seem so old you wouldn't believe it. And no nation is going to really investigate it and dig deeper then the surface, leaving a prove 'fact' to everyone but the ones who did it. And given the evidence they(the hoax people) have available to them, the conclusions they reached are logical.

Bullplop, disproven many times. Einstein was a fairly normal child, development-wise. And you're not an idiot for disbelieving the promoted belief. You're an idiot for believing an idiotic belief. Albert Einspwned.

And the idiotic belief is the depromoted belief in your culture. The belief that your leaders shun and spit on, and thus it would be idiotic to believe such a thing. The wisest man in Europe was kind of crazy in Africa, and the Empire in China didn't know how to rule in Europe. Just because a man has a difference view does not make him lesser of a man, a man could have a PhD and doctorate, and think we never went to the moon, that doesn't make him an idiot. Take that into consideration the next time you feel like debating with another.

Easy. Simple momentum. In a vacuum, if you shake a stick with some cloth on the end of it, it will keep shaking. A pendulum works just fine and dandy in a vacuum, you just have to start it moving. As the astronauts did when they josteld the flag. You'll note, if you look through a telescope, that the flag is still moving. Go on, explain that one with your uber-logic, oh wise and omnipotent one. Momentpwned.

I never said I was wise, nor omnipotent. But okay, I'll take the compliment. Did you see the flag moving? Let me give you a real fact. A flag cannot wave about like that when there is no air and thus no wind at all. At the very most it would be fluttering upwards but most likely not at all even if the astronauts gave it a push. With the littler gravity the moon has and the fact that there is no air or wind, the flag would not waver as if being blown by a wind current. If the astronauts set it off by jostling it would waver, then float upwards, can of like astronauts walking on the moon, you know how they can of jump because there is little gravity. Well, the flag is just a piece of cloth it would go upwards like them, or wouldn't move at all. I am sorry, but the fact that the flag moved the way it did is very questionable.

You are the debater. Because no-one else on the boards is stupid enough to question the moon landings. If you start a discussion thread, and state your opinion, you are involved in the debate on that side. If you just mentioned the theory, and invited people to discuss, you are not a debater.

Pwnage now complete. You may return to your duties.

I have not stated my opinion, not on the first post nor on any post following that. You do not know my opinion on the moon landing. I have merely questioned, and I happened to question that we went to the moon and not the hoax because there was no one defending the hoax and thus I pointed out something’s in the hoax’s theory that I wanted to see how the people of this forum would react to them. If I had said "we were lied to" and not "Were we lied to?" then I would have been the debater but since it went the other way and not to mention and didn’t arguer any points really, I thought it would have been clear I was not the debater, I didn't think I would have to spell it out for you. This debate is barely worth being called a debate, no one here even gives half of a argument that makes much sense or show anything new or original, the biggest thing was asking for the names of the Russians I had said didn't believe we went to the moon, but otherwise it's as if you guys sure aren't trying to convince anyone that we went to the moon, maybe yourselves but that's it. I was hoping for some good old, logical, debate between two parties fighting it out but oh well, I guess everyone here should stick to gaming.

I would reply to the other post, and I might later, but I am short on time... So...

 

[Grishnash]

Double Post...

 

[Mowque]

btw, no observatory could have watched them....sorry guys, that part isn't true.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Wow, wall of text there.

Anyways, it is always so funny that people who dispute well known things with extremely dubious discrepancies always represent themselves as bold skeptics challenging the status quo unlike all us blind sheelpe out there.

 

[Sharwood]

It's not even worth my time to go through all that again, because I completely debunked every single one of his arguments before, yet he's continuing to make them. It's like holding a conversation with Gavin Menzies or Erich Von Daniken. Hell, at least Daniken's a smart guy, just a terrible scholar, but this, this is something else.

@Mowque: On the way up, not actually there.