Does the Moon exist?

[Syed]

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/Moon3.htm

Part of it, it's a great conspiracy...I'm loving reading this;P

 

[Demented_]

The Moon is real. And what you're reading is crap. You're just getting manipulated, sure I heard 2012 theory, but this is pretty much crap. The moon landings could of been a fake; but the moon is real.

 

[Sup3r 4ut03r]

The moon is definitely up there. I mean if it didn't exist, then what do we really see when we look up at the sky?

I believe that the pictures and videos that NASA showed us about the moon landing were all fake. You can clearly see that they were shot in a studio.

The Earth and the Moon largely differ in composition, which casts serious doubt on the Giant Impact theory. The most plausible theory to me is that the moon is an artificial satellite.

What do you mean largely differ in composition? The thingy crashes into molten earth, they morph into one large and one smaller form of sphere, and there you go.

 

[Deacon Frost]

The Moon is real. And what you're reading is crap. You're just getting manipulated, sure I heard 2012 theory, but this is pretty much crap. The moon landings could of been a fake; but the moon is real.

You have absolutely no valid proof that such is true. Have you ever been there? Can you prove it's not just something in our atmosphere that reflects light oddly?

 

Perhaps the estimate was rubbish?

Considering the first half dozen Apollo missions didn't even get off the launch pad and a bunch of astronauts died without even getting into space, I doubt it. The technology was rubbish, the computers were less powerful than your pocket calculator, the electronics were highly sensitive to radiation. I can think of a million things that could and should have gone wrong.

So no, I don't think the estimates were wrong.

Inferior to whom? The Soviets? Sure, the Soviets had a great head start from the military projects of WW2, but our investment into NASA would far surpass them as the Soviet Union gradually crumbled.

Inferior in terms of today's technology.

Lol @ "but our investment into NASA" -- NASA is / was a military front, that is why the saturn V rockets look like scaled up warhead missiles, because they are scaled up warhead missiles. The US recruited a bunch of nazi scientists who had worked on the V2 rockets in germany.

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Germanys_V2_engineer_played_key_role_in_moon_landing_999.html

Why should they? That's the billion dollar question.

Why should they go at all?

Put it this way. The US empire has 737 permanent military bases in 130 countries. Virtually everywhere they've been they've put a base, no matter what the cost.

I venture to suggest they don't have a manned base up there because even today the technology is not feasible, and it certainly wasn't in the 1960s.

 

[Demented Radio]

Considering the first half dozen Apollo missions didn't even get off the launch pad and a bunch of astronauts died without even getting into space, I doubt it. The technology was rubbish, the computers were less powerful than your pocket calculator, the electronics were highly sensitive to radiation. I can think of a million things that could and should have gone wrong.

So no, I don't think the estimates were wrong.


Inferior in terms of today's technology.

Lol @ "but our investment into NASA" -- NASA is / was a military front, that is why the saturn V rockets look like scaled up warhead missiles, because they are scaled up warhead missiles. The US recruited a bunch of nazi scientists who had worked on the V2 rockets in germany.

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Germanys_V2_engineer_played_key_role_in_moon_landing_999.html

If anything, 90% of the R&D for the space programme was stolen from the nazis and the moon landing was a front for ICBM development during the cold war.


Why should they go at all?

Put it this way. The US empire has 737 permanent military bases in 130 countries. Virtually everywhere they've been they've put a base, no matter what the cost.

I venture to suggest they don't have a manned base up there because even today the technology is not feasible, and it certainly wasn't in the 1960s.

I remain decidely skeptical about the entire affair.

Everything you said makes 110% sense
I was watching on The History Channel when it was the 40th anivesery of the moonlanding, and one of the guy's said "The main computer onboard was about as powerful as todays Calculators, yet they claim to of made it to the moon 200 Thousand miles away. Right, That means we can make a spaceship capable of going to the moon with our average computer. Can't wait.

 

[Zak_rs2]

I remember watching a tv programme late 1 night, a few weeks ago, can't remember what its called sorry, About all moons, from all planets etc, and the main reason they said about knowone going back to the moon since the 1st time was because it was a desolate wasteland, nothing interesting about it etc, and it'd be a waste of billions of dollars of tax payers moneys to send more people up there, and they spoke about 1 of jupiters moons for about 20 minuites and how there was traces of frozen water etc.

So in answer to your question, well obviously the moon exists you can see it on most nights, did people land on the moon? i think so, really what i think they should do is try and find a moon or planet with greater gravity to ours, and try and plant trees etc, cacti and stuff like that, and try and spring some kind of life up there, see what kind of life forms would grow and thrive in those kinds of atmospheres etc.

 

[Rabs]

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=666549

Origional thread, locked by daily.

 

[FreedomFight]

Considering the first half dozen Apollo missions didn't even get off the launch pad and a bunch of astronauts died without even getting into space, I doubt it. The technology was rubbish, the computers were less powerful than your pocket calculator, the electronics were highly sensitive to radiation. I can think of a million things that could and should have gone wrong.

I can't think of a lacking technology that would've PREVENTED it from occurring. Because these sorts of estimates are surely based on guesses and perhaps faulty assumptions. A million things can go wrong, but each part was probably like hundreds of times. So unless you can point a particular hindrance of technology, I'd be a bit uncertain.

It's an argument w/ "a varying degree", which I acknowledge is often applicable in debate. But in this case, it's fairly black and white. If I told you that Kobe Bryant made a full court shot, and you told me that there was an only 1/1000 chance of such occurrence, would you be proving me wrong?

Inferior in terms of today's technology.

Well of course.

Lol @ "but our investment into NASA" -- NASA is / was a military front, that is why the saturn V rockets look like scaled up warhead missiles, because they are scaled up warhead missiles. The US recruited a bunch of nazi scientists who had worked on the V2 rockets in germany.

Never looked into this, but I'm not surprised and I'll take your word for it.

Put it this way. The US empire has 737 permanent military bases in 130 countries. Virtually everywhere they've been they've put a base, no matter what the cost.

And this single base could be more costly than the rest combined. Space travel isn't cheap. I'm just suggesting that they're not just going to go up there to prove people wrong.

I venture to suggest they don't have a manned base up there because even today the technology is not feasible, and it certainly wasn't in the 1960s.

It's probably true. Establishing a permanent base would require much more technology than a simple "touch and go".

 

[Arya]

I suppose it was about time to add my two cents.

Evidence showing that the moon exist is believe-able.
It's vague logic, but it's ultimate. I've seen the "moon". In the sky, not in a studio.

Evidence showing that man has landed on the moon is not.

Assuming that this picture is real, I find it very hard to believe that with only one known contact coming from the picture it self, TRACKS would be on the moon.

This implies that either this picture is fake, or the entire concept of man of this age landing on the moon is fake.

I jus sayin'.

 

[1encore1]

The moon exitsts... it's their. You can see it, why and how would people replicate the moon being their?

 

[Cloak]

The reason that the stars are not visible is because of camera technology.
Our physics teacher told us that a camera could now be set up so that you could both view shadows ect. and still see something as bright as the stars.
Or something like that, i dont remember completely. Anyways, i dont think the picture is fake.

 

[FreedomFight]

I suppose it was about time to add my two cents.

Evidence showing that the moon exist is believe-able.
It's vague logic, but it's ultimate. I've seen the "moon". In the sky, not in a studio.

Evidence showing that man has landed on the moon is not.

Assuming that this picture is real, I find it very hard to believe that with only one known contact coming from the picture it self, TRACKS would be on the moon.

This implies that either this picture is fake, or the entire concept of man of this age landing on the moon is fake.

I jus sayin'.

Of course there is tracks, he after all DID need to walk around.

Mythbusters proved that moondust actually holds footprints very well.

 

[Malachia]

I'm pretty sure the moon exists...

 

[TheGopher10]

Your logic is bad.

1. The picture in the moon landing has no stars
2. The moon has no atmosphere
3. One can see stars on a moon with no atmosphere
4. The moon doesn't exist

You assume that the moon landing picture is not doctored or fake. This should be a question of whether or not the picture is real instead of whether or not the moon is real.

The "proofs" on the website are just crazy. I don't think I need to give them any explanation at all.

 

[FreedomFight]

Your logic is bad.

1. The picture in the moon landing has no stars
2. The moon has no atmosphere
3. One can see stars on a moon with no atmosphere
4. The moon doesn't exist

You assume that the moon landing picture is not doctored or fake. This should be a question of whether or not the picture is real instead of whether or not the moon is real.

The "proofs" on the website are just crazy. I don't think I need to give them any explanation at all.

He's not trying to claim that the moon doesn't exist. The title is just something that Deacon used to snob attention.

 

[MadHatter12]

obviously the moon exsists. But no man has never set foot on the moon i find it weird the russians where ahead in technology back then and they were not even nearly close to getting to the moon. Besides on google type in fake moon and you will have your answers.

 

[rs emperor]

They did an episode about this on MythBusters and they proved it is real.

Rs Emperor

 

[Wedel]

Moon exists, the question is if someone actually was landed on it.

 

[Shin]

They did an episode about this on MythBusters and they proved it is real.

Rs Emperor

Yes. I already provided this in a post on the very first page.

Moon exists, the question is if someone actually was landed on it.

There is proof of man doing so, and you can see actual objects on the moon with high powered telescopes that have been left there.

It is possible to get to the moon. Otherwise, explain to me what NASA is for.