Did man really land on the moon?

shouldn't have to go to those lengths but its sad that it may have to

 

And the naysayers are probably the same people that believe the Holocoust never happened. Yep, all of the photos and movies we've seen of the victims, and interviews given by the ones that survived were fake. Yep, for sure!

 

In an age in which we are bombarded by endless media clips of negativity and cynicism it is easy sit back and criticize the accomplishments of the past as being less than what they truly were. We live in an age of reality TV (starting with COPS, I believe) and seemingly endless debate over the real motive for the war in Iraq. In short we live in a time of sensationalist headlines and doubt.

I don't really have the conviction to scan through pages of this thread in order to find out if it has been mentioned already or not. That said, watch 'In The Shadow Of The Moon'. I had my doubts before, but watching this changed my mind. Kennedy's dream existed in a different time and place. We were motivated to do something because we had a clear rival, a distinct goal, and a determined outcome. Now we live in a world in which the general consensus is that everyone is a potential rival, goals are murky at best, and we don't know what outcome we are after.

I am 26 years old. It is not my intention to derail this thread, but it illustrates a point I feel very strongly about. All of my life I have been taught, K-12 and college, that America is the greatest country on earth. That is an awesome and inspiring feeling, when you are 6 years old and sitting in class, to know that you have it better than anyone else. The problem is that if you are the greatest, where can you go? If you are the greatest, why are there so many issues and problems? What we need is to start teaching the youth of the country is that they live in the country with the greatest potential and it is up to them to make it happen.

We need to make them dream again. Maybe they will land us on Mars.

 

and Columbus had a crazy idea about currents in the ocean , have you seen how tiny his ships were ?
and somehow while looking for India he discovered TWO new continents and Captained perhaps the most important expedition of all time. How farfetched is that ?

Then look at the ANTIKYTHERA device, its a 2000 year old analog computer, it should not exist by our version of history BUT it does http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1031.htm

What about a handful of crazy Americans in the 18th C that banded together started a country and beat THE superpower of the 18th C. 150 years later this small poor country of 13 colonies would become THE superpower for almost 100 years now. How crazy is that ? Probably more farfetched than the Moon landing

How about Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier, Lots of people thought he would get killed but Yeager and the engineers at Bell did it

just because something is difficult doesnt make it impossible, it just shows how far intelligent driven people can go

 

Thanks, it's easier to understand now.

 

How do you suppose they believe GPS and satellite TV works ? LOL

 

Hold your watch directly in front of your eye. Can you read it? No? See?

 

Even the ancient Greeks would be dissapointed by that...although some such simple superstitions do have a sort of charm all their own.

Remember this - we built a nuclear submarine in the mid fifties, and sailed it under the North Pole.

Or, so they say -

 

Just an interjection to try and clarify this point. The Macro or close focus analogy does NOT apply to Hubble and the moon. Lenses have a design focal length which is typically on the order of millimeters (50mm for a typical SLR camera lens) to meters (57.6 meter for Hubble). A macro lens is designed to be able to focus on objects that are distant roughly on the same order as the focal length (1-10x). However, once you are many times the focal length distant (say 30-100x), then everything is pretty much at infinity focus as far as the lens is concerned. The moon is 384,000 km away, with a Hubble focal length of 57.6 meter, that is 6.7 million x the focal length. The moon or an extra-solar object are both at infinity on that scale. The problem is resolution, the smallest object detectable on a Hubble sensor pixel at the distance of the moon is 60-100 meters in size.

 

The award is the ignorant bliss of religion.......
Did I just say that?

 

It sounds far fetched because you are an idiot. The computers on Apollo were very powerful at the time, yet pilots cross-checked results on slide rules and gained results in similar time as the computers. Often long before the computer results were printed out.

Beyond that, I have a new microwave oven installed in 2006. Install that ****er in a space shuttle and have it land said shuttle from HEO and I will believe you. Plug your coffee pot into the captain's spot on a shuttle and have that shuttle land perfectly and I will totally buy into you argument that your modern appliances can obviate the role of pilots. To date, my "smart" microwave cannot pop a freaking bag of popcorn yet you think it can land a shuttle?

Funny. And people like you are allowed to vote.

 

any rocket scientist or anyone that works in NASA here,
care to share some real life stories...
would love to hear... well.. i read lots about the arms race, and the Starwars program... and even the cuban crisis.. which made both the USA and the USSR making new ICBM's and launch vehicles.

 

2287.5 does not lie.

 

I take it you're referring to MHz?

 

Correct. The only way that anybody could hear a signal coming from the moon with high gain, narrow beamwidth antennas is for the signal to be coming FROM THE MOON. Unless you believe that the CIA landed an automated relay transmitter on the surface of the moon to help fool every radio astronomer on earth, the signals were coming from the moon.

 

The earth IS flat...havent you idiots ever looked at a map ???

 

wow that site is crazy from the FAQ's:

Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.

Q: If you go directly south won’t you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?

A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.

 

Wait wait wait wait a second, that can't be right. If you have a submarine that's under the water, then how can you 'sail' it? Is there a telescopic sail that comes out of the water to propel the submarine? I am not saying it's a conspiracy and didn't happen, I just find it hard to believe.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

its hard to tell if its serious or just someones joke website to attract those with :ahem: 'lessor' IQs

 

There seems to be a large market for these people. Wanna start selling "flat globes"?


Antony

 

I'm down.

Seriously though, does anyone know if that's a joke site? If not, it's the most brilliant idea since Scientology..