do you think we landed on the moon?

do you think we went to the moon

  • Yes!

    Votes: 65 79.3%

  • No!

    Votes: 17 20.7%
  • Total voters
    82
I suspect that we landed on the moon but what material is the flag made of to last all these years? :confused:
 
Originally posted by krom
I suspect that we landed on the moon but what material is the flag made of to last all these years? :confused:
Click to expand...

its a regular flag... as we said... no atmosphere, what would cause it to corrode or wear away??
 
I can't believe that people in the poll actually do not believe we landed on the moon!! I mean come on !! Get real!! You guys have got to be just kidding.
 
Re: You can see tranquility base with your own eyes....

Originally posted by lburou
The American flag, among other litter, is visible on the moon with a telescope....How did it get there? A communist plot? A congressional committee? Jimy Hoffa put it there? ;) I think WE put it there, just like it showed on television :D In my view, its pretty hard to explain away something you can see with a telescope right from your own back yard. Pretty hard to fake.

There are a number of things to question in this existance, our visits to the moon are not on that list. :)

It is good that you are cynical about these unbelievers....They are too easily led ;)

P.S. Your uncle prolly swallowed too much antifreeze to think clearly ;)
Click to expand...
Last I read the flag wasn't visible from earth, even with the most powerful telescope. I believe I read that on a NASA site that had debunked "non-moon landing theories".

However, we did land on the moon. From Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 (with no landing of course with Apollo 13).
 
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp has some useful information, and tons of other stuff if you search for moon, telescope, etc. As for the spy satellites, NO ONE lugs a 30,000 lb telescope into ORBIT. You can use -much- larger telescopes on the earth. The light of course DOES have to travel through the -same- atmosphere. Did some more reading, and these guys say you couldn't see the flag from earth. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134
Not sure what the h ell I saw then. Was very convincing at the time, but I admit I was young. Here's another page that deals with truth/hoax of moon landing, and has some links http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=17
 
This thread reminds me of the polarization we find when talking with Ford, or MOPAR guys....All knowing their car is best, and their opinion correct ;)

None of us seem to be open minded, save jastrckl :)
 
WOW, I'm so surprised that there are so many people that don't believe we landed on the moon. Maybe some of the 20% are like a few others that have posted that don't believe we did it back in 1969 but did it later.

Very interesting indeed!
 
Can't see the flag on the moon?

For some stoopid reason, I'm of the opinion that if we have telescopes that can see supernova's and quazars that're 20 million light years away (through our cruddy atmosphere), it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to be able to see a flag that's only 1/4 million miles away...?
 
Most of the pictures of supernova's and other large bodies are seen from telescopes from space. Also, all of the other things we are seeing from light years away are emitting their own light (except for black holes, which we cannot see directly). I am not an astronomer, but I believe the techniques used to see these are very detailed. A technique similar to time lapse photography is used. Its not like you just look through the eyepiece and see a supernova.

BTW, I was just arguing the point that you cannot see anything left behind on the moon. I do have doubts about us reaching the moon, but that is really irrelevant today. I also believe that the value of NASA has been underestimated by most people for the last 15 years. The space program has more potential than any other governmental program that I know of.
 
The only thing I have to say to make the doubters think is to look at the technology we had back then. Yes we had computers that could do some pretty good calculating, but it was all very basic. Scanning in and manipulating a 100 meg color photo was impossible back then. The point is, they didn't have the tools to fake the videos back then. Watch any 1960-1970s sci-fi movie from that time and you will see how poor of quality the special affects were. :D
 
Our government has always been so honest with us, they would never lie, would they? Well maybe just a few times. The Warren report, now that was a whopper. Have they ever owned up to Area 51? UFO's? Look at all the money they spent to send that RC car to Mars, and how far did it go? The Moon landing? I used to think it was true, now I don't know.
 
I would think that the technology required to fake the footage would be less than the technology required to actually get to the moon. Motion pictures had been around for at least 70 years and space exploration was much less than that. Plus, it seemed that the Russians were always one step ahead of us yet they never could get a man to the moon.
 
Originally posted by jkirch26
I would think that the technology required to fake the footage would be less than the technology required to actually get to the moon. Motion pictures had been around for at least 70 years and space exploration was much less than that. Plus, it seemed that the Russians were always one step ahead of us yet they never could get a man to the moon.
Click to expand...
They didn't have Hollywood... ;)

Just adding fuel to the fire!
 
When I attended Purdue University some crazy Engineering student started to argue this with my professor. My professor laughed and said if you want evidence from the video then look at the dust. The behaviors of the dust in that video is only that of dust in a near zero gravity environment. Something he said was not reproducible unless you were inside of NASA's vomit comit. Which I highly doubt they'd be walking around like that inside an airplane.

My Mom thinks we didn't land on the moon because she watched some stupid show one night about how the landing was faked because there were no stars in the background. I laughed because anyone with any knowledge of cameras will understand why no stars are visible. Plus, if they were going to fake the moon landing and focus enough of their attention on creating accurate dust then why would they not do something about the stars too? My Mom also believes Nosturdamas predicted 9/11 and the world was supposed to end in 1993. That just goes to show you what kind of information people who think we faked the moon landing believe in. Oh, and if I was Buzz Aldren I would've punched that wacko too.

James
 
Actually the computing power to land on the moon is a fraction of what it takes to do computer animation. Heck, they still only use 386 and 486 computers on the space shuttle.
 
Originally posted by BLACK6PACK
Actually the computing power to land on the moon is a fraction of what it takes to do computer animation. Heck, they still only use 386 and 486 computers on the space shuttle.
Click to expand...
The F14 Tomcat uses the computing power of a 286 computer. I believe this also has something to do with why it takes hours to load up mission data to the onboard computer.
 
Originally posted by BLACK6PACK
Actually the computing power to land on the moon is a fraction of what it takes to do computer animation. Heck, they still only use 386 and 486 computers on the space shuttle.
Click to expand...

Plus, once upon a time, people did incredible things without relying solely on computers... :p

I CAN"T BELIEVE that this topic is still being discussed after 4 days! LOL!
Good one Vendor. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Why do diesels think they are the only ones with boost?
Replies
19
Views
4K
JustABuick
J
G
History of the car radio
Replies
4
Views
492
SPOOLFOOL2
SPOOLFOOL2
R
It Was One of Those Days - Pt 46
Replies
5
Views
2K
Raven
R
B
A dream come true for me
Replies
8
Views
755
Bruce Urie
B
G
On the way home:
Replies
8
Views
758
aminga
A
Top