User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:01:21 PM EDT
Alright. This guy is a good friend, co-worker, shooting buddy, poker buddy..... all-round good guy. I know him well and trust him implicitly.
Now I find out that he is severely freakin' deranged. He believes that the Moon landings were faked. He thinks that the images were filmed in Yuma, AZ.  I'm sure that we'll hear both sides here, but what the hell. What do YOU think? Did we land on the Moon or not ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:02:09 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:02:09 PM EDT
[#2]
Your friend is weird.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:04:07 PM EDT
[#3]
His IQ is sub-50, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:04:40 PM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:05:50 PM EDT
[#5]
I do believe that we went to the moon, I just question how we were able to do so with computers that have less processing power than a calculator watch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:06:13 PM EDT
[#6]
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:06:30 PM EDT
[#7]
^^^^^^I was thinking the same thing, just didn't have that picture.
ETA--Refering to the "not this shit again" picture 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:06:40 PM EDT
[#8]
tag
HH |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:08:33 PM EDT
[#9]
My reponse to this and similar conspiracy theories is simple:
Subscribing to the notion that this is one HUGE coverup, would acknowledge a well organized and competent government - the same government that can't keep a blowjob quiet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:08:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Draw down.
If he came to that conclusion, then he's not smart enough to actually understand how you can get to the moon on less computing power than a wrist watch. Back then, people used to think and count and stuff. Now we just play video games  ETA. If you're serious about helping your friend, ask him if he believes that the A-bomb was invented in the 1940s. Tell him that the atomic bomb was MUCH harder to do than go to the moon. We've had the maths for rockets since Newton. The hardest part was the chemistry. The A-bomb took the greatest collection of minds the world has even known, an unlimited budget, and a dozen new fields of science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:09:27 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:10:11 PM EDT
[#12]
Hey good one.
We haven't had a good "the moon landings are fake" thread in a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:11:01 PM EDT
[#13]
yeah it's been what, 2 weeks since the last one? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:11:56 PM EDT
[#14]
I believe we did, but this is a pretty far right website and most conservatives think we did. LOTS of middle grounders and libs believe we didn't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:12:41 PM EDT
[#15]
Unless you were on the space shuttle, how will we ever know the truth? :P
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:14:08 PM EDT
[#16]
But then, we haven't had a moon landing in a while either, have we. Hmmm..... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:15:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Pfft...I know the doorgunner from the 3rd Apollo mission.
He says we went. Definitily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:16:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Well, I'm pretty sure the clinton's marriage is faked....sort of.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:17:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Beat him senseless, its the only way to be sure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:18:16 PM EDT
[#20]
That's because we're so busy exploring the earth's atmosphere at 120,000 feet with space shuttles developed ten years after we supposedly landed on the moon. Which is 225,000 miles away. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:20:43 PM EDT
[#21]
The shuttle is an orbital craft. Different craft, different missions. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:21:40 PM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:21:46 PM EDT
[#23]
Like I said.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:22:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Because almost all of the computing was done with live computers, I.E. brains. The electrical equipment on the spacecrafts was mostly navigational equipment (gyroscopes, etc) and power switches. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:22:41 PM EDT
[#25]
So Wobblin, what do you think happened and why?
Not flaming, just curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:23:42 PM EDT
[#26]
OTOH, if we didn't go to the moon, how did we get "Tang" and "Space Food Sticks"? And transistors, and band aids, and White Out, and all the other stuff thats possible only through a trip to the moon???? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:26:31 PM EDT
[#27]
What arguements did he give? (I'll bet I can guess about 20 of them, and I know the answers to them all. I've dealt with his kind many times, and I've studied astronomy and the space program.) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:26:34 PM EDT
[#28]
Tell him to produce the "mile wide" vacuum chamber that it was filmed in and I'll agree with him. Those early vacuum chambers were very hard for scientists to build. They had to be circular to withstand external pressures and they didn't have all kinds of "space age" materials that we have today. These chambers were only about 6 feet in diameter at the most. There are several shots of astronauts running around on the silt and driving very far away from the camera and no dust kicks up into the air. The surface that they were walking on was extremely fine in texture, like talcum powder, and yet - No dust = no air = a perfect vacuum.
   Apollo 11 Quicktime VR Apollo 17 Quicktime VR Eagle landing Lunar Rover footage |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:27:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Also, it strikes me as strange that we could go on a spending and design frenzy in a world with virtually no computer technology and develop a craft to put people on the moon...and bring them back alive, yet with all the technological advances since then, putting people any further away than 1/22,000th of the distance is "too expensive and dangerous." Ooooooohkayyyyyyy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:28:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Honestly? I don't know. I'm not actually saying we didn't go to the moon, I'm just playing devil's advocate due to my skepticism. Either way, I don't really care. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:29:06 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:31:13 PM EDT
[#32]
First of all, we had a lot more incentive to send a person to the moon than we have right now to send people up in the shuttle. Second of all, it is a hell of a lot more difficult to build the shuttlecraft, complete with gigantic reusable rockets and, most of all, a reusable spacecraft, than it is to build a one-use spacecraft. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:31:31 PM EDT
[#33]
According to him, it was based on the fact that we NEEDED to beat the Russians to prove our superiority. Apparently we both ran into the technical difficulties that made the landing impossible, but that we faked it, so the Russians would believe that we were so far superior to them. That's why they eventually gave up, because we had already won. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:32:58 PM EDT
[#34]
I'm sure the Russians weren't watching our every move, trying to expose the landings as faked. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:35:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Supposedly?????????? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:36:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Okay. You got me. "Hypothetically." |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:42:51 PM EDT
[#37]
It was a conspiracy to make the Russians think we were more technologically advanced than they were. There were prop rocks found in the photos marked with letters "C".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:46:23 PM EDT
[#38]
Would you please provide a link to said photos. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:46:37 PM EDT
[#39]
I've seen that picture. If it was an actual C, it wouldn't have looked all crappy and wavy, exactly like a fuzzy on the lens. Oh, and did you know that in one picture, one of those + signs on the picture is actually seen to go BEHIND a brightly-illuminated object! It is so obvious that the photo was fake. I mean, everyone knows that the only way to get + marks on film is to hang them from strings in the background! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:49:55 PM EDT
[#40]
I researched a site that examined all the theories about a fake lunar landing and the one theory they agreed with was that many of the lunar photos were indeed faked.
Other than that, they said the lunar landing was genuine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:50:17 PM EDT
[#41]
Why don't you have him ask Buzz Aldrin ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:50:41 PM EDT
[#42]
Since he's your friend, you can let it go at a beating. If he weren't your friend, well, people that stupid should be killed, for the good of the gene pool. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:51:24 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:51:28 PM EDT
[#44]
Also no stars in the video or photos. I'll see about getting the pix... Its Called Google
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:51:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Suuuuuuuure.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:53:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Bingo, do not let this moron spread his defective genes. Cock-block at every opprotunity. If you can give him a swift kick in the nuts hard enough to scramble his eggs, I'd think long and hard about it.[j/k sort of] As for trusting him implicitly, I'd rethink that as well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:55:22 PM EDT
[#47]
Why would I believe something I read on the internet over something I watched on TV? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:55:32 PM EDT
[#48]
it's also called'badastronomy.com' and 'thorough debunking'. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:55:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Ahh yes! A classic arguement, made by ignorant know-it-alls! "You can see stars at night. Therefore, if you take a picture on the moon, of course you'd see stars!" WRONG. Try this: Tonight, if it's clear, go outside with a camera and take a snapshot of the sky. Check the photograph. Do you see any stars in the picture? No. Now take into account the fact that the moon's surface is very bright and the shutter speed had to be set even lower than normal. Basically, the cameras had to be set so that they did not overexpose the moon's surface. When you set it that way, you underexpose the stars. If you were to set the camera to see the stars (a shutter speed of perhaps a half a second), everything else would be pure white. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:56:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Funny, coming from a guy who thinks he's a pirate. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
