Jump to content

Man on the Moon


Showtime 1-1

Did the Apollo missions 11 through 17 (save 13) [i]really[/i] land on the moon?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Did the Apollo missions 11 through 17 (save 13) [i]really[/i] land on the moon?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      3


Recommended Posts

If you believe... We put a man on the moon....

I was listening to the R.E.M song, and it got me thinking... I know that the topic of the Apollo missions is a touchy point of debate, so I figured I'd see what SF-O's general opinion is.

For those who don't know, there is some speculation into whether or not the U.S government, or more specifically, NASA, actually landed the manned Apollo missions on the moon, beginning in 1969. Skeptics claim that the moon landing was faked, and the government's rationale behind this was to end the "space race" with the Soviet Union, in order to raise morale in the American people in preparation for the expansion of the Vietnam War.

This is a volatile topic, but I think it's only fair to allow a discussion. However, as soon as things get out of hand, I will make sure a mod does what needs to be done.

Personally, I believe that men did land on the moon. The shaky evidence against it is easily disproven, and the technology in the Apollo program was massively advanced, advanced enough to solve the problems of basic space travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Might wanna have this topic moved to the pub :P)

I personally think they actually did land on the moon :D.  I've got nothing to back it up, and nothing to disprove it though :D, unless Mythbusters counts XD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly doubt we did, considering last I heard, during the time the lunar landing was supposed to occur, there was a severe radioactive storm happening in space, and the space suits and space craft were not radiation shielded, and the astronauts would of died almost instantly from exposure.

Likely, we announced we did land on the moon to discourage the Russians from really pushing their attempts to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be better suited in the Pub :)

I don't really know if the US landed on the moon, my dad says we didn't, but he says a lot of things O_o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is more entertaining (and at the same time ridiculous) to hear about conspiracy theories.

Yes, just because it's a conspiracy theory already makes it unsound or ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, just because it's a conspiracy theory already makes it unsound or ridiculous.

Hence where they get their name from.  If things like this had a certain degree of truth to them all things considered then they wouldn't end up being labeled as such. :)

I'll concede though, not ALL of them are far fetched "ridiculous" sounding ideas but most of them I've seen, given both the "proof" and any supporting evidence vs any rebuttal, are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't care which way.

Evidence for- Moon rocks we brought back. Lazer markers left there. Basicly physical evidence. Extremely acurate movment and physics only posable in zero G.

Evidence against- A ton of circamstantial evidence. eg. The same hills being used over and over, the mistakes in photos, (missing reflections ect) political pressure, the tech wasn't up to the job (the fact we can't repeat the feat to this day for example), the 'lost' original footage which was taped over because NASA didn't think it was important.

Against the Against- Not one of them is something that can't be explained as huge coincidence/incompetence, it's only when taken as a whole there is an issue. The huge consipirasy nutcases who won't accept evidence. The amount of people involved that would have to keep their mouths shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(the fact we can't repeat the feat to this day for example)

Except we DO have the technology to go back to the moon. We haven't repeated this feat since the 1970s for one good reason: The Cold War ended. The Moon landings awe inspiring as they were, were just a political tool to whip the Russians at the space game they started. There has been no -pratical- reason (until recent years) to go back to the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except we DO have the technology to go back to the moon. We haven't repeated this feat since the 1970s for one good reason: The Cold War ended. The Moon landings awe inspiring as they were, were just a political tool to whip the Russians at the space game they started. There has been no -pratical- reason (until recent years) to go back to the moon.

Right, but it should be cheap enough now to be repeatable, like space travel, air travel, ect. But it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cheap? really? personlY i think they really did. why not repeat it?  Why repeat it in the first place we have no plans to make a moon base or anything of the sort so why repeat a landing that was mainly ment to whip the russian's back into their place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cheap? really? personlY i think they really did. why not repeat it?  Why repeat it in the first place we have no plans to make a moon base or anything of the sort so why repeat a landing that was mainly ment to whip the russian's back into their place?

That's what the Constellation Progrm is for. Its why the Space Shuttle retires this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cheap? really? personlY i think they really did. why not repeat it?  Why repeat it in the first place we have no plans to make a moon base or anything of the sort so why repeat a landing that was mainly ment to whip the russian's back into their place?

You talk as if Nasa and America are the only country who have any interest for going into space...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what the Constellation Progrm is for. Its why the Space Shuttle retires this year.

The Constellation Project got scrapped (one of the few things I strongly disagreed with Obama on). We're now going to be depending on the Russians to get astronauts to the ISS, and the private sector to resupply it. :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

The Constellation Project got scrapped (one of the few things I strongly disagreed with Obama on). We're now going to be depending on the Russians to get astronauts to the ISS, and the private sector to resupply it. :facepalm:

Really?  Ugh!, I second the  :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Para Astaroth

Sorry to drift off topic for this brief moment, but is our strong nation turning to other people for help since we can't help our own after these many centuries and decades?  I mean really.......

Anyways, how would you explain the flag on the moon, the photographs of Neil Armstrong (I suppose) posing on the moon, and the video of one of the two men hoping along the surface humming a tune?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to drift off topic for this brief moment, but is our strong nation turning to other people for help since we can't help our own after these many centuries and decades?  I mean really.......

Anyways, how would you explain the flag on the moon, the photographs of Neil Armstrong (I suppose) posing on the moon, and the video of one of the two men hoping along the surface humming a tune?

You really believe america is entirly self sufficent? Nations rely on others, even the US. Unfortunatly it's fair to say that america has a bit of an ego overall, which is why americans bang on and on about WW2 so much.

Let's take the space elevator for example. Britain, and most EU countries, cant build one because they have to be on the equator, as a result something like the mocrowave satelitte will have to be a collabritive effort because, simply put, we need someone to give us a lift we need to build it.

Off Topic, but realists believe the way to world peace is finational inter-dependence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to drift off topic for this brief moment, but is our strong nation turning to other people for help since we can't help our own after these many centuries and decades?  I mean really.......

Anyways, how would you explain the flag on the moon, the photographs of Neil Armstrong (I suppose) posing on the moon, and the video of one of the two men hoping along the surface humming a tune?

Are you kidding? The US was never independent from the rest of the world. After the revolution we were very reliant on Europe. We only became a superpower after WWII, and the only reason for that is because Europe was basically destroyed. The only reason the US wasn't was because of two vast bodies of water called the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Since our factories weren't getting bombed on a daily basis, we were able to pump out tons of shit to support our soldiers and allies and to help Europe rebuild (See: Marshall Plan).

Once Europe got back on their feet, we still needed them as allies in case the cold war became a hot one. Then, we drank the free trade Kool-Aid and have been reliant on countries like China to make our shit while our workers are cast aside as "too expensive."

China could easily screw us over if they wanted to. And if you think we could win a war against China without allies behind us, you're in for a nasty wake-up call should that day come. China is rapidly modernizing their military, and they happen to have almost 1.4 billion people in their country that they can conscript from, compared to our piss-ant 300 million. Not to mention we no longer have the manufacturing base to support a massive war, either. We sent that to China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constellation Project got scrapped (one of the few things I strongly disagreed with Obama on). We're now going to be depending on the Russians to get astronauts to the ISS, and the private sector to resupply it. :facepalm:

It wasn't scrapped, just overhauled and delayed somewhat. It's still alive and kicking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China could easily screw us over if they wanted to.

Financially?  Not without screwing themselves and the rest of the world over too.  While they might have a massive trade surplus right now since a good % of their holdings are in U.S. if they ordered you guys to "pay up" not only would it screw over the U.S. economy more but that in turn would ruin the world much more so then something as "pathetic" like Greece's bankruptcy would., which in turn would cause China's exporting economy to go to Hell in the process.  Only reason why China is doing so well financially anyways is because of it's near slave labour (they barely pay their workers working 60 hour weeks) and the government (until recently) as kept it's currency artificially low, which labeled them as currency manipulators.  As a result businesses in China that export are making super loads of money and since a lot of them are state owned that money goes back to the government.  It's sad really. :/ 

And if you think we could win a war against China without allies behind us, you're in for a nasty wake-up call should that day come. China is rapidly modernizing their military, and they happen to have almost 1.4 billion people in their country that they can conscript from, compared to our piss-ant 300 million.

Technically all America would have to do is wipe out the Chinese navy (which is not nearly as powerful as people think it may be) and then sit back and launch missile after missile attack.  30 million people won't do you any good if you can't get them off shore to attack anything due to having no Navy.  :trollface:  Furthermore, the vast majority of the Chinese population are near the Pacific ocean within striking distance of missiles.

Even if they modernize their military (their navy is quite lacking) and build it up to par with the Americans which would take quite a substantial amount of time, (China has publicly stated many times their priority is the economy and not their military, but lets say for the benefit of the doubt they are completely lying) they would still have to establish a worldwide system of logistics with other countries to keep their armed forces supplied (if they intend on being influential worldwide)  The U.S. has a lot more developed and high tech countries that they're allied or have a favorable standing with then China and there aren't a lot of countries right now that would give China (Totalitarian State rampant with human rights abuses and mistreatment of citizens) access to their country so they can build a refueling or navy base.  You can build the worlds biggest state of the art military and have overwhelming numbers but unless you have the logistics to go with it eventually you'll overstep your bounds and have trouble resupplying.

India would have to be a very vital ally in all this as the world's largest democracy and 2nd largest country by total population.  They are doing pretty well from a GDP viewpoint as well and would be a force to be reckoned with in the future as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...