Theres proof that we landed on the moon

[Andy44]

What is your educational background and/or experience that leads you to that conclusion?

That is an argument from authority, the ad hominem attack's little brother.

Argue on facts, please, people, and let's avoid taking it personal. It's just the internet. (Oh my God, someone is WRONG on the internet!)

Maybe Mr. McLowery can provide some evidence to back up his assertions. If you don't want to "convert" us, why bother arguing?

 

[bujin]

That is an argument from authority, the ad hominem attack's little brother.

Argue on facts, please, people, and let's avoid taking it personal. It's just the internet. (Oh my God, someone is WRONG on the internet!)

Maybe Mr. McLowery can provide some evidence to back up his assertions. If you don't want to "convert" us, why bother arguing?

Not intended as an argument from authority at all. I was merely asking what his background was. Every-day experience does not always result in an accurate conclusion, as it often misses out subtle effects which are not always apparent. Whether it's classed as an argument from authority or not, I'd far rather a medical diagnosis from someone trained as a doctor than someone trained as a chef.

The problem is that people rush to take questions as a personal attack when they're only intended as a genuine question. It's an unfortunate by-product of hundreds of thousands of arguments on the internet!

BTW - I apologise to the forum for my earlier post. I didn't realise inappropriate content included the use of asterisks. I do now! :thumbup:

 

[Coolhand]

I assume we're talking about this Apollo 15 footage then? as no one seems interested in posting it.. there we are. I think this quality is perfectly acceptable to see at least that the movement is not a result of compression or artifacting. And it seems unlikely its a direct collision between astronaut and flag, not sure if i could rule it out entirely though since the suit obscures a lot of the frame.

Oddly, the flag does appear to deflect slightly away from the astronaut, and then appears to be sucked back in. Interacting as you might expect with an atmospheric, or fluidic "bow wave" pushing away in front of the guy, and the resulting low pressure and turbulence that follows as a body moves through air or water.

Its interesting, but as bujin says its perhaps static effects... but would that account for it being pushed away and then drawn back in like that? Maybe infact its not being pulled back at all and that is just a rebound.

I dont think that video is absolute "proof" since we don't see enough of whats happening to say either way. So it really just comes down to what you believe.

So, I find it hard to believe that any footage put out by nasa was shot on a sound stage, and that some bits were faked, while some weren't.

Wouldn't it be easier just to fake the whole shebang if you were going to fake anything at all? Why fake Apollo 15? America had already proven it had wicked skills by then... no?

If you accept that they did go to the moon at least once, then any coverup is obviously covering up something other than; "we can't actually get to the moon".

So if that bit is fake, then it really brings up some far more wilder ideas than a simple faking of the landing itself. Which are infact even harder to swallow... perhaps like some 2001-esq type scenario, or a cover-up of a terrible accident.

Is this, now with the extra weight of the recent images of the landing sites, where mainstream lunar hoax theory is going? Though it brings up some novel ideas, I'm not sure that this hybrid theory is as easy to accept overall.

 

[Mantis]

I personally believe that the flag planting of Apollo 15 wasn't shot on the moon and there is footage of the LR with exhaust plumes puttering out of it. Now I'm not positive of the authenticity of that LR exhaust but I am totally sure of the flag footage for Apollo 15. It moves from the pressure wave of the approaching astronaut. There aren't pressure waves on the moon.

That theory has been 100% debunked. The Mythbusters (among others) busted that one in fact. The flag does not react to the approaching astronaut. It moves in response to the action of the other astronaut placing it in the lunar soil. Mythbusters tested that in a vacuum chamber and PROVED that in the absence of any meaningful atmosphere, there is nothing aside from gravity to slow down or stop the motion of the flag once it was set in motion by the astronaut setting it up. The result was that the flag moved much more evidently and for 3 or 4 times longer in vaccuum than the same flag moved in full atmostphere.

 

[fireballs619]

I definitely don't want to convert anyone to my own personal conclusions. I KNOW that we went to the moon, walked around on it, drove around on it and brought back geologic samples. That said, I also know what levels of deception the government is willing to go to, to make an event play out just the way they want it to in the minds of the average citizen. If ALL the footage is authentic there wouldn't be such a large amount that can be considered, at least, questionable. I am in no way a "hoaxer", I'm just being realistic in my line of thinking about the Apollo missions footage catalog.

I will try to go about his politely,but if I divulge into an rambling madman, I apologize now.

I will start by acknowledging that at least you believe we landed on the moon, that's tons better than most 'hoaxers'. But, in the above post, you say that you 'know' the levels of deception the government is willing to go to. How are you sure of this? You also point out the fact that if all of the footage is authentic, there wouldn't be so many details that are 'wrong' or 'out of place'. How do you determine that these are wrong, by taking your knowledge of space and saying 'hmm, that doesn't fit'. Now, I don't mean to be insulting with that statement, and I will admit that my knowledge of space is limited too, so I instead rely on NASA to confirm authenticity. All of the errors that are usually pointed out have valid explanations, that usually get tossed to the wayside. Why don't you believe those?

I think another xkcd is due here. http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[Alexw95]

the flag waving when he aproched it is explainable him jumping on the ground probably sent a tiny little shake in the top layer of the soil causing the flag pole to move a tad what made the flag move a bit

 

[computerex]

All in all, one can only make a shrewd guess about whether the moon landing happened or not, we may not ever definitively know.

You may be a firm believer, but there might be someone else out there who firmly believes in the opposite of what you believe in. Any evidence that you provide is likely going to be insufficient for him, and any evidence that he provides is likely going to be insufficient for you.

You can't really force someone into believing in what you believe in, simply on the basis that you provided evidence, because evidence too is relative. What is acceptable as valid evidence? Who gets to make that standard? You might say, "The scientific community as a whole", but even the scientific community doesn't have a firm standard for what is acceptable evidence. For the sake of argument, let us assume that we do have some standard upon which we can agree on. But what will you do if the opposing side simply doesn't believe in scientific reasoning? Sure, on a forum such as this those guys will get pummeled. But on their forums the folks here will get pummeled. Who gets to decide who is right?

 

[statickid]

ugh

 

[bujin]

All in all, one can only make a shrewd guess about whether the moon landing happened or not, we may not ever definitively know.

You cannot definitively know anything. Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

But you can weigh up all the evidence for and against an argument and decide your version of the "truth" from that.

However, some people work the wrong way around - they have their belief in what the "truth" is, then select the evidence that fits that belief. You can see that easily by talking to a MLHer - they will demand that you try to answer their question, most of the time thinking they're giving you an impossible task. If you can answer their question, they'll quickly shift to another one in an attempt to get you to say "I don't know", or some other concession. But if you come back at them with a question from your side of the argument, they will refuse to answer it.

If you weigh up the evidence for and against the Moon Landing Hoax, you would typically find that the evidence is well over 99% in favour of an actual landing.

 

[computerex]

You cannot definitively know anything.

I am so glad you got the point.

 

[Urwumpe]

I am so glad you got the point.

How do you know?

*just pulling a leg*


There will never be the absolutely truth, only the way towards the truth.

But if you can live with being 99% sure, things are great.

 

[ddom2006]

A little bit off topic here, but it is too awesome to go without showing. To those that have yet to see:

YouTube- Buzz Aldrin Punches Bart Sibrel

No charges were pressed because, hey, it's Buzz Aldrin. And the fact that Sibrel initiated it, but who cares about that?

This is the biggest win ever :thumbup:, Way to go Buzz :tiphat:

 

[statickid]

i know we landed on the moon because i did an astral projection and visited the moon landing site myself.

--ddom2006

THANK YOU FOR THE VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: i wish i saw more of this type of discussion with people like that

 

[Viper1]

i know we landed on the moon because i did an astral projection and visited the moon landing site myself.

--ddom2006

That was You? Dude you left your Scooby Doo lunchbox!!! Dont worry though, I gave to Buzz back at the cape. He was hungry so it might be empty:embarrassed:
:rofl:

 

[Pilot7893]

You underestimate conspiracy theorists. They are impervious to evidence.

 

[Ghostrider]

You underestimate conspiracy theorists. They are impervious to evidence.

Not if you engrave the evidence on 00 buckshot pellets and shoot them in the nether regions with it, they aren't.

 

[Viper1]

What goes around...

 

[Ghostrider]

What goes around...

Ok, we'll engrave it on a boomerang as well.

 

[Urwumpe]

Not if you engrave the evidence on 00 buckshot pellets and shoot them in the nether regions with it, they aren't.

I still think it would be much more fun if you put them into a more diabolic version of Takeshi's castle, spiked with deadly traps and riddles that you can only solve by knowing real physics, and send the whole bloody show as pay-per-view webstream and on DVD.

Think about it: subtracting the costs, we could still then employ Martin Schweiger for the rest of his life for improving Orbiter... ^^ I am sure the incomes would be a good negotiation position then. And the money was earned in a deeply moral way.

 

[Ghostrider]

I still think it would be much more fun if you put them into a more diabolic version of Takeshi's castle, spiked with deadly traps and riddles that you can only solve by knowing real physics, and send the whole bloody show as pay-per-view webstream and on DVD.

Brilliant! I say we do it. I'll bring some rusty nails and razor blades and stuff. And physics books with pages so sharp they will give nasty paper cuts.