I lean towards no, our country pulls the wool over everyone's eyes on everything anymore, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did it back then!!
some of the points that conspiracy theorists bring up are interesting and plausible, to say the least...
i watched the mythbusters show on this a couple nights ago. pretty interesting stuff.
the fact that apollo 13 i believe placed reflectors on the surface makes me a believer. they pointed a laser at the spot and it showed a definite spike in reflectivity.
Check out my build thread!
I'm goinna say we didn't. the government always lie and they think we are stupid
"I See No CHANGE"
the mythbusters "proved" that we did, but they are just 2 guys in a lab, and with space, its not something you can "prove" unless your out there doing it (going to the moon).
i like to believe that we did but i don't take much for granted anymore
.
How many people do you think were working for NASA in the late '60's? 20,000? 30,000? Imagine making sure 30,000 people keep their mouth shut about the biggest scam ever for 40 years. yeah, that sounds plausible. Then there's the Russians. Back in 1969 they didn't like us very much. If they found out we faked the whole thing a la Elaine Benes, and they would have found out, there's a fairly good chance someone in the USSR might have mentioned it in the past 40 years. I'm just sayin'.
Im supporting that we did. But I do believe the space race during the 50s and 60s was a waste really. The Soviets launched Sputnik to start a game of one upmanship that they new we wouldnt resist which would distract us from other things. I mean what really have we gained from space exploration since the beginning?
So putting satellites in space was a waste of time. Although we have not created sustaining life in space yet the technological advances throughout the years has aided the world and made our living better.
I have to stand by the fact that yes we did land on the moon why would we lie about it and what good would have come from it? What letting the Russians win? Well if you look at it as a waste of money look at it this way it made them waste money as well.
I accidentally the SHIFT LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!
The proper way of using the word seen. It is not I seen it that would be I saw it. He has seen the car is the right way to use the word. English class is Cool. By the way thats my sig
Just thought of this as well. If landing on the moon was a hoax why would you believe the fact that there is an international space station? To me if there is anything hard to believe it would be that over going to the moon landing and coming back along with the two other landings.
I accidentally the SHIFT LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!
The proper way of using the word seen. It is not I seen it that would be I saw it. He has seen the car is the right way to use the word. English class is Cool. By the way thats my sig
Put it this way. It was the 60's. The way technology was back then compared to today, there was almost no way to fake the moon landing and make it believable. We didnt even have somewhat convincing CGI effects til the mid-late 1990's. And even then there are usually telltale indicators that it's fake. And as others have stated, the amount of ppl that would be involved if it indeed was a set up would be, well astronomical.
We cant even have a new car model introduced without sneak shots, previews, and spoilers months in advance, let alone travelling thousands of miles in space being fake. PPl aren't that good at keeping secrets
Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 3rd quickest Ecotec on the .org - 10.949 @ 131.50 MPH!!!
we did... the latest lunar orbiter has imaged each of the Apollo sites.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
plus Mythbusters went to an observatory and shot a laser at reflectors placed on the Moon. They did a run on a random other location and got no reflection, then they pointed the laser at the location of the reflector and got reflection back at the scope. The reflectors were put in that spot by astronauts.
No No No....You guys got it all wrong. The aliens from Roswell put those reflectors there for us. We made deals long long ago. Yep, you betcha they did. just go to alienpranksandanalprobes.org.
As for the keeping 30 thousand people quite..... they could have all thought they where really talking to people on the moon and in space when they wherent
To be honest..... I have seriouse doubts that we did myself.... its just that all the evidence pointing towards the idea that we didn't.... is just so much more believable than the half assed "proof" that we did...
The footage looks fake to me..... the shadows and light sources for the pics are wrong.... the lunar rover apparently couldnt have fit in the lander.....we where in a space race with russia at the time, theres all kinds of stuff..... I dont really take a stance either way..... nut there sure is a lot there to make you second guess it.
I actually did a speech on this LOL (in front of a group of people)..... I have a lot of these things off the top of my head.... but I'de need to re research to get extremely precise.
It was about not blindly believing what your told and to ask questions.
Fiqures I'de be well versed at a topic like this LOL
pretty much most of the conspiracy guys have been proven wrong over and over and over again. the shadows and light scouces have been proven to be entirely possible and as mentioned earlier if it had been fake russia would have called us out on it years ago it alsways seems that the guys calling it out as fake are these guyus out living in the desert in trailors. too much sun maybe.
so we can find out about a single guy getting a blowjob in a locked room but we can't get anyone to crack the secret of the 100's of hundreds of people involved in somehow faking this. you would need tons of people. speacial effects guys, photographers and vidio guys. all the actual astronauts prop guys, lighting guys your probalby talking 100 people minimum to do it. someone would have came out by now. theres no way it was a fake.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
The whole problem with these historical conspiracies always comes down to "We didn't have the technology at the time to..." and blah blah blah. The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids because they just weren't that advanced. Never mind the fact that their society existed for thousands of years and that the Romans considered them as equals. The Romans, those guys who built an aqueduc 2000 years ago that worked until the 20th century.
Anyway, my point is that technology in the 50s and 60s was MUCH more advanced than most people think. Just look at a short list of stuff that was designed in those two decades:
The Hubble Telescope (50s)
The Space Shuttle (60s)
The SR71 Blackbird (50s)
The Concorde (60s)
Hell, the microwave oven is from the 1940s for christ sakes.
The Concorde alone is one of the most impressive human achievements of all time. More even than the space shuttle. Every jet fighter that flies at mach speeds is torn to pieces after it's flown and rebuilt after an inspection. Not the Concorde, it would fly, land, refuel, and fly some more. Just like a regular plane. It may not sound impressive, but think of the pressure at those speeds. It was immense. And the thing was built to take it over and over again.
My point is that, barring computers, the NASA engineers of 1969 had access to technology that was not significantly less advanced than todays.
===
On a totally different train of thought, I love how the conspiracy theorists' beliefs are all over the place. On the one hand we're stealing UFO technology and can read brainwaves from black helicopters. On the other hand, we didn't have the know how to go to the moon.
Here is my take on this. Both sides are arguably good but I lean that we didn't.
Let me start with the time line. Yes, we were at a competition with the USSR and both were at wars being first to flex their muscles and say "that we are better than you so don't mess with me." It is kind of like competing with the Jones, Jones buy a Cadillac, then out of envy and "not loose superiority" mentality: I must buy a Maserati just to show we are better than you. That mentality was going on here, whether we need to go or not, that was one of Kennedy's biggest mission as well.
Then we were in Vietnam and with no backing from the public for the war and US itself, by us going to the moon, it was a boost in moral here and showed we achieved something as oppose to failing so badly in Vietnam.
Back then the US was financially more stable with more funds that out rightly surpassed the USSR's. So why not do this?
Now the physics, I'm no genius at this, but I know the basics. I say we could go to the moon, orbit the moon, land and return. Now the landing is the hard to believe part, ESPECIALLY the tin cans that we used (You really have to go NASA to see what I'm talking about). To reach and then land there safely takes lots of thrust power, something that the little capsule could not support. It is like having a SMART car with a LS9 engine and 100 gallon fuel cell what NASA was showing to get to the moon.
It's not so much that "we didn't have the technology back then," but rather we don't have the technology TODAY, much less back then. Today we worry about a tile the size of a shoe box coming off the Shuttle at 25,000 miles yet no worries to travel 300,000 miles, thats how advance we are today? Yes, we are advanced at Earth items, but when it comes to out of this world, dealing with no gravity and no oxygen, we are riding in a Model -T today, and horse-n-buggy then.
Then something that I just found out last week, NASA has absolute no footage of the landing. The footage that we see today are recorded feed from news channels taken back then. I don't know but something so monumental as going to the moon and back and you don't keep no footage of this? Also we have Armstrong still alive and 40 years later, the man has not come out and talked about it at all. Why no enlightening, cheer up the US and show what we achieved in history?
Then we look at the actual footage. Do you remember in Elementary science when your teacher said that you need a atmosphere to create wind? We know the moon has none, and yet the flag was flaring as it was posted at a beach. The footage of the rocket going up passed the Cirrus clouds, the rocket was to shaky as it was moving left to right a little and to me was doubtful. There is way more follies that happened, but I forgot some of it. But think of this, look tonight in the sky, you will see thousands of Suns/Stars all over the galaxy, yet look at the NASA picture that "SPITfire" linked, no Suns/Stars? Here, let me show you it better.
Then when we went to the moon and actually drove on the moon, lol now then they insulted with our intelligence. Now the flip side, a couple thousand not 30,000 was involved, and hiding that would be epic, so that argument would be valid and a good one. I was one that was naive and believed that we landed there and came back. That was until I went Cape Canaveral recently and saw the transportation to get there, I swear, I felt like I got Punk'd. But luckily I'm open to anything valid, which is why I asked this and like to read what you have to say, thankfully I'm not the only one that is skeptical.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
It was Obama ! He lied about the moon and took all the money. Damn college learned scien-socialists!!!
___________________________________________________________________
Hahn Stage II - Mitsu TD06-20g |3" Turbo-back Exhaust | 61mm Bored TB |
HP Tuners | Innovate WB02 | Spec Stage 3 | Team Green LSD | TurboTech Upper | Full Addco Sways | Sportlines & Yellows |
straight from wikipedia... for what it's worth....
Quote:
4. There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a press conference after the event to have not remembered seeing any of the stars.
The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light.[56], pp. 158–160Even the brightest stars are dim and difficult to see in the daytime on the Moon. The Moon's albedo is very high and with no atmosphere to traverse, daylight at the surface is very much brighter than on Earth. Harrison Schmitt saw no stars from the Moon.[57] The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the brightly sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background into ink-black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed in order not to have the foreground light completely wash out the image. A demonstration of this effect is here. The effect is similar to not being able to see stars outside when in a brightly-lit room - the stars only become visible when the light is turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon. All of the landings were in daylight.[58]
As for the flag... it has a rod along the top to keep it stretched out, as can be seen in the picture below:
and there's actually two of these pictures taken, and you can see the guy moved, but the flag stayed in the exact same spot. Maybe the "ripples" are folds from transportation? (If you watch the below picture, you'll see it alternate between the two different pics.
As for the size of the lunar module:
Remember that this thing needed to be shot out of earth's gravity field, so it needed to be as light as possible.
When this thing is shot from the moon, it only needs 1/6 of the propulsion, because the moon is so much smaller than earth. ( I haven't seen the thing in real life, so I can't make any real judgments, but I could understand why people would think the thing is way too small... when it really isn't)
Let me start with the time line. Yes, we were at a competition with the USSR and both were at wars being first to flex their muscles and say "that we are better than you so don't mess with me." It is kind of like competing with the Jones, Jones buy a Cadillac, then out of envy and "not loose superiority" mentality: I must buy a Maserati just to show we are better than you. That mentality was going on here, whether we need to go or not, that was one of Kennedy's biggest mission as well.
Then we were in Vietnam and with no backing from the public for the war and US itself, by us going to the moon, it was a boost in moral here and showed we achieved something as oppose to failing so badly in Vietnam.
Back then the US was financially more stable with more funds that out rightly surpassed the USSR's. So why not do this?
so, if your in this big competition and he goes out and buys a ferrari and you feel like you lost, and then you look and see its a edsel with a ferrai badge and the guy is just lying to the neighborhood, wouldnt you run out and tell the neighbor hood? russia was watching us like hawks just like we were watching every step they made. if they new it was a fake they would have blasted that all over the country for years proving how much we suck.
Now the physics, I'm no genius at this, but I know the basics. I say we could go to the moon, orbit the moon, land and return. Now the landing is the hard to believe part, ESPECIALLY the tin cans that we used (You really have to go NASA to see what I'm talking about). To reach and then land there safely takes lots of thrust power, something that the little capsule could not support. It is like having a SMART car with a LS9 engine and 100 gallon fuel cell what NASA was showing to get to the moon.
It's not so much that "we didn't have the technology back then," but rather we don't have the technology TODAY, much less back then. Today we worry about a tile the size of a shoe box coming off the Shuttle at 25,000 miles yet no worries to travel 300,000 miles, thats how advance we are today? Yes, we are advanced at Earth items, but when it comes to out of this world, dealing with no gravity and no oxygen, we are riding in a Model -T today, and horse-n-buggy then.
of course you worry about a single tile. you worry about every single nut and bolt when your sending people up in a multi million dollar aircraft. esp when your budget has been cut back so much over the last 20 years that you have to penny pinch everything. its not cheap to replace a spaceship. so it makes allot more sence to scrub a launch and fix it then to risk blowing it up. and im guessing your degrees in metallurgy, propulsion, physics allowed you to dertermine that it wont work?
okay for some reason i can't copy and past now. oh well
as for john glen. he used to talk about it before, i thought i remember at one point he got tired of defending himself all the time so he doesnt do it anymore. im sure id get annoyed at people coming up to me all the time and trying to call me a liar about my greatest accomplishment.
as for the video footage. i'll give you that one. it was stupid not to have backups and more footage but stupider things have happened.
as for the part about the pictures and the starts and such, most of all that has been debunked as well. same goes for the flag. all debunked.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
