Did we really land on the moon in '69?

[Kyuuketsuki]

That's not fair. Why would he be gullible to believe something different that yourself. Man you have a big problem with people who aren't exactly like you. They are all stupid, demented...

I have a problem with stupidity.

And I have a problem with calling you on it.

That's your problem.

I will try to stop, in the name of self-improvement. Meet me half way?

No.

Kyu

[Eilonnwy]

That's not fair. Why would he be gullible to believe something different that yourself. Man you have a big problem with people who aren't exactly like you. They are all stupid, demented...

And I have a problem with calling you on it.

I will try to stop, in the name of self-improvement. Meet me half way?
-Pip

It is gullible to accept an alternate theory is so overwhelmingly crushed by valid and available evidence.

Would you make the same defensive statement about a holocaust denier? Not everything is open to different opinions, Facts are facts when supported by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientists keep arguing with creationists. They insist there's some controversy but if you actually look at the evidence, the overwhelming consensus is evolution. If you have a difference of "opinion" you're flat out wrong.


On a side note about conspiracy theories, what is more logical, that we made it to the moon or that we staged the whole thing and to this day none of this has come out except a few nut job people insisting it's fake with horrible or no evidence at all?

The house of cards falls so easily. You have two people in a conspiracy, odds are you can keep it. You bring in another guy, and the odds go down. Have a conspiracy that would involve hundreds of people and the ability to keep a conspiracy on that scale is so ridiculous to even consider. People talk.

[bozo]

Niggling doubts.

Or niggling gullibility?

Kyu

no, now concentrate on what I write-- d o u b t.....doubt.

---

That's not fair. Why would he be gullible to believe something different that yourself. Man you have a big problem with people who aren't exactly like you. They are all stupid, demented...

And I have a problem with calling you on it.

I will try to stop, in the name of self-improvement. Meet me half way?
-Pip

It is gullible to accept an alternate theory is so overwhelmingly crushed by valid and available evidence.

Would you make the same defensive statement about a holocaust denier? Not everything is open to different opinions, Facts are facts when supported by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientists keep arguing with creationists. They insist there's some controversy but if you actually look at the evidence, the overwhelming consensus is evolution. If you have a difference of "opinion" you're flat out wrong.


On a side note about conspiracy theories, what is more logical, that we made it to the moon or that we staged the whole thing and to this day none of this has come out except a few nut job people insisting it's fake with horrible or no evidence at all?

The house of cards falls so easily. You have two people in a conspiracy, odds are you can keep it. You bring in another guy, and the odds go down. Have a conspiracy that would involve hundreds of people and the ability to keep a conspiracy on that scale is so ridiculous to even consider. People talk.

E, rather than " doing a Kyu " and resort to name-calling, would you care to answer the specific reasons for doubt I raise in my earlier post?

[lilphil1989]

Like I say, I swing both ways on this. What evidence you ask? Well not evidence more niggling doubt.
For example, given the timing, at the height of the cold war and with USA and USSR racing to be first on the moon, is it beyond the possible that the Americains could have staged it?

Do you really think the Soviets didn't track the American vessel to the moon?

If there was even a miniscule hint that it hadn't really been done, Russia would have been shouting about it. Quite loudly.

[Eilonnwy]

Just recently I read that there is more computer stuff in today's washing machines than was in the computers controlling the moon shot. Is it credible that such basic computer power was sufficient?
In the same programme it was admitted that as the eagle was landing, a malfunction led the astronauts to believe the eagle was travelling well faster than their speedo was indicating, yet they still managed to land softly, on suitable ground, in the moon landscape!

You want me to address your "niggling doubts?" Well I'm not a scientist, I don't have that level of detailed knowledge on what goes into landing on the moon. Doesn't matter anyway, the doubts aren't worth addressing.

Doubts don't win over evidence. And I also know how this logical game is played with conspiracy theories. I used to be a 9/11 truther until logic whapped me upside the head.

It's all about seeding doubt without providing any evidence to back up your claims. "Steel Buildings have never collapsed from a fire, jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt steel." But then when you actually take the time and dig deeper, the science is there. The fire didn't have to melt steal, it weakened it and then gravity played it's part. It's all about looking at "This can't be true, or that can't be true" without looking at what the evidence is and what is true.

If you have serious questions then go investigate them. Find out what the science is. The questions you raised are just that, Questions. And what you "read somewhere" is not good enough. These questions don't bother me in the slightest because what I do know of the lunar landing is sufficient for me to accept and I find it highly improbably to the point of absurdity for it to be a conspiracy.

And you wonder why people are acting so negatively? That's because the moon hoax conspiracy is laughable. It's bad science and bad logic and I have no respect for that. It's in the same boat with holocaust deniers, and creationists. They're ridiculous ideas and by definition they should be ridiculed and not given the hint of legitimacy.

[bozo]

Just recently I read that there is more computer stuff in today's washing machines than was in the computers controlling the moon shot. Is it credible that such basic computer power was sufficient?
In the same programme it was admitted that as the eagle was landing, a malfunction led the astronauts to believe the eagle was travelling well faster than their speedo was indicating, yet they still managed to land softly, on suitable ground, in the moon landscape!

You want me to address your "niggling doubts?" Well I'm not a scientist, I don't have that level of detailed knowledge on what goes into landing on the moon. Doesn't matter anyway, the doubts aren't worth addressing.

Doubts don't win over evidence. And I also know how this logical game is played with conspiracy theories. I used to be a 9/11 truther until logic whapped me upside the head.

It's all about seeding doubt without providing any evidence to back up your claims. "Steel Buildings have never collapsed from a fire, jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt steel." But then when you actually take the time and dig deeper, the science is there. The fire didn't have to melt steal, it weakened it and then gravity played it's part. It's all about looking at "This can't be true, or that can't be true" without looking at what the evidence is and what is true.

If you have serious questions then go investigate them. Find out what the science is. The questions you raised are just that, Questions. And what you "read somewhere" is not good enough. These questions don't bother me in the slightest because what I do know of the lunar landing is sufficient for me to accept and I find it highly improbably to the point of absurdity for it to be a conspiracy.

And you wonder why people are acting so negatively? That's because the moon hoax conspiracy is laughable. It's bad science and bad logic and I have no respect for that. It's in the same boat with holocaust deniers, and creationists. They're ridiculous ideas and by definition they should be ridiculed and not given the hint of legitimacy.

I'm not accusing anybody of acting negatively. I just have doubts, ok?

---

Like I say, I swing both ways on this. What evidence you ask? Well not evidence more niggling doubt.
For example, given the timing, at the height of the cold war and with USA and USSR racing to be first on the moon, is it beyond the possible that the Americains could have staged it?

Do you really think the Soviets didn't track the American vessel to the moon?

If there was even a miniscule hint that it hadn't really been done, Russia would have been shouting about it. Quite loudly.

You may well be right but don't you equally think ex-soviets would have rushed to either debunk or support the conspiracy theorists? Maybe they have, I don't know. I still have my doubts that I could go to the moon and back in a Zanussi!

[leo-rcc]

The thing about the moon landing is that you can check from the Earth whether or not man made objects are there.

The first laser ranging retroreflector was positioned on the Moon in 1969 by the Apollo 11 astronauts. By beaming laser pulses at the reflector from Earth, scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters. The laser reflector consists of 100 fused silica half-cubes, called corner cubes, mounted in a 46-centimeter square aluminum panel. Each corner cube is 3.8 centimeters in diameter. Corner cubes reflect a beam of light directly back toward the point of origin.

Source: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

So if you want to find out, get a high powered laser, some measuring equipment, and do the experiment yourself.

[bozo]

The thing about the moon landing is that you can check from the Earth whether or not man made objects are there.

The first laser ranging retroreflector was positioned on the Moon in 1969 by the Apollo 11 astronauts. By beaming laser pulses at the reflector from Earth, scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters. The laser reflector consists of 100 fused silica half-cubes, called corner cubes, mounted in a 46-centimeter square aluminum panel. Each corner cube is 3.8 centimeters in diameter. Corner cubes reflect a beam of light directly back toward the point of origin.

Source: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

So if you want to find out, get a high powered laser, some measuring equipment, and do the experiment yourself.

Sounds like a considerable outlay would be involved so I pass. But thanks for the suggestion.

[Tiberius]

I used to be a 9/11 truther until logic whapped me upside the head.

Hehe, same. "Loose Change" was such an appealing movie to my younger self.

"Steel Buildings have never collapsed from a fire, jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt steel."

I think that was the first thing that got me out of the "truthers" game. Realizing that this is a fallacy (i.e. because something has not happened before means it cannot happen), backed up by the evidence of gravity of course...

Now it's hilarious to watch people try and defend their views. Most astounding thing someone has said to me: "There was absolutely no reason for the towers to come down!".

My response? "A f*cking plane flew straight through it..."

[Purple Rabbit]

My response? "A f*cking plane flew straight through it..."

That's no answer at all. Why would a plane have a fuck with a tower?