Did man land on the moon?
- Heston
- God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
- Posts: 38367
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
- Location: North of Watford Junction
Did man land on the moon?
A little poll, just so I can post the first thread on here.
I think no.
I think no.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board
Re: Did man land on the moon?
I need more evidence from both sides, so I say: Meadowlark Lemon.
I just wanted to be the first person to respond to the first thread in Dictator. 8-)
I just wanted to be the first person to respond to the first thread in Dictator. 8-)
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116489
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Did man land on the moon?
As with most conspiracies of a global nature, you have to believe that not only did the initial fraud take place—the Americans faked the whole thing in a movie studio—but that other nations, which could provide evidence that no moon landing occurred via their own space program and/or satellites (i.e., the Soviet Union) saw a reason to go along and cover up what was a huge coup for the US. It's important to remember that each nation's space program was huge in terms of "proving" which system was better and the way of the future. The space race was serious shit in the propaganda war. So a faked landing seems exceedingly dubious to me. Now, I still think it's plausible—not, however, probable—that some of the released photos were faked. That is, perhaps the quality of some of the shots on the moon were murky and the propaganda wing of the US govt decided to reshoot them on earth, just for public consumption. I would definitely entertain that possibility, but not that the whole thing was faked—that just depends on too many participants who would have competing agendas agreeing to keep quiet.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35924
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Did man land on the moon?
Hookworm wins at posting.Dr. Medulla wrote:As with most conspiracies of a global nature, you have to believe that not only did the initial fraud take place—the Americans faked the whole thing in a movie studio—but that other nations, which could provide evidence that no moon landing occurred via their own space program and/or satellites (i.e., the Soviet Union) saw a reason to go along and cover up what was a huge coup for the US. It's important to remember that each nation's space program was huge in terms of "proving" which system was better and the way of the future. The space race was serious shit in the propaganda war. So a faked landing seems exceedingly dubious to me. Now, I still think it's plausible—not, however, probable—that some of the released photos were faked. That is, perhaps the quality of some of the shots on the moon were murky and the propaganda wing of the US govt decided to reshoot them on earth, just for public consumption. I would definitely entertain that possibility, but not that the whole thing was faked—that just depends on too many participants who would have competing agendas agreeing to keep quiet.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: Did man land on the moon?
YES, THERE IS A FUCKING FACE ON MARS!!!!!
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
- slimeydave
- Dirty Punk
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:49pm
- Location: Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Re: Did man land on the moon?
If nobody has landed on the moon, how did the mirror get up there in July 1969 that has been used every day since?
I still like cheese
- Rat Patrol
- Unknown Immortal
- Posts: 15431
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 9:23pm
- Location: A flat burning junkheap for twenty square miles
Re: Did man land on the moon?
10 yes votes?
Pfft...you people will swallow any damn lies thrown at you. I've got a round globe I'd like to sell you too. I'll even throw in that evolutionary "theory" for free.
Pfft...you people will swallow any damn lies thrown at you. I've got a round globe I'd like to sell you too. I'll even throw in that evolutionary "theory" for free.
- Toxana Mellor
- Bang Ice Geezer
- Posts: 180
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 6:14pm
- AdamRamone
- Dirty Punk
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 2:11am
Re: Did man land on the moon?
I doubt it. the martians got there first while they were drunkenly flying thru space while coming back from the chupacabras birthday party.
big business it dont like you
- MadModWorld
- Trashy Britpop Kid
- Posts: 717
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:51pm
- Location: Somewhere between Heaven & Woolworths...
Re: Did man land on the moon?
Didn't Bowie try to land on the moon?
With the pseudonym Major Tom?
With the pseudonym Major Tom?
Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead...
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: Did man land on the moon?
He was just going where his spaceship took him.MadModWorld wrote:Didn't Bowie try to land on the moon?
With the pseudonym Major Tom?
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
Re: Did man land on the moon?
I'm dubious. Ever see that tin can they supposedly used or one of those painting jumpsuits they supposedly wore? Or that golf cart? One item that has stuck in my mind from a TV show on the faked lunar landing I saw a couple years ago is the well known photo of the waiving USA flag and the comment that there is no wind on the moon. (I assume there's a logical NASA rebuttal for this but I haven't heard it.)
edit: I just read one:
On July 20, 1969, two Apollo 11 astronauts planted an American flag on the surface of the moon. The flag was a standard 3-foot-by-5-foot nylon flag that was altered by sewing a hem along the top. A telescoping crossbar, hinged to the flagpole, was extended through this hem so that when the flag was planted on the Moon, it would stand out instead of hanging limp against the flagpole (as it would normally do, since there is no wind on the Moon). When the flag was planted, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had a little trouble getting the telescoping crossbar to extend to its full length, and so it ended up being a little shorter than it should have been. As a result, the flag was bunched up slightly and looked like it was actually "waving in the breeze."
another:
Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!
edit: I just read one:
On July 20, 1969, two Apollo 11 astronauts planted an American flag on the surface of the moon. The flag was a standard 3-foot-by-5-foot nylon flag that was altered by sewing a hem along the top. A telescoping crossbar, hinged to the flagpole, was extended through this hem so that when the flag was planted on the Moon, it would stand out instead of hanging limp against the flagpole (as it would normally do, since there is no wind on the Moon). When the flag was planted, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had a little trouble getting the telescoping crossbar to extend to its full length, and so it ended up being a little shorter than it should have been. As a result, the flag was bunched up slightly and looked like it was actually "waving in the breeze."
another:
Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!
then don't go killing all the bees
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116489
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Did man land on the moon?
Well, then, I think it's incumbent upon you to explain why the Soviets and Chinese, to name the main two, went along with the conspiracy. It's not just about the initial fraud; it's also about the continued cover-up. Just as with Dallas, there's the actual assassination, but it's also about the Warren Commission and its defenders thereafter.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Did man land on the moon?
Did the Soviets or Chinese get someone on the moon? I thought the Soviets gave up without landing anyone, and nobody from the U.S. has been up there since 72. The real question is why not. Someone, some country, who had no involvement back in 69 and hasn't accomplished the same to date of course isn't part of a cover up. Those countries didn't contribute to the Warrant Commission report either, and aren't a part of the cover up regarding JFK. The lunar landing, like the assassination of JFK, has an 'official' explanation which has such a lack of consistency, support and logic that it begs for either more or other explanation. When some explanation other than one supportive of the 'official' version is proposed, it is immediately and automatically 'officially' dismissed as a silly sham conspiracy from some wacko; that way, everyone's world view and the government remains stable; everyone goes home from work each day feeling fine and comfortable that what they are doing is productive and good, and what they are told is the whole truth and nothing but. That people buy the official version rather that the conspiracy version is not so much based on evidence and logic as it is simply follow the leader and media. People often want to be told rather than think for themselves - call it brainwashing, laziness or whatever. When it comes to this stuff I for one think the burden should be on the government to prove it's own assertions - beyond a reasonable doubt. Particularly the US government, and ever more particularly given its recent actions with that evil idiot Bush in charge. But I see no reason to give some of those earlier administrations the benefit of doubt either just because it repeatedly sticks to the same story and refuses to question itself or even earlier permutations of itself. Like Bush and Dick, the government would never admit that it was wrong, let alone that it lied in the past for some reason. Especially when it's so easy to get folks to buy and believe the cover up version ...
then don't go killing all the bees
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: Did man land on the moon?
dpwolf: WHY would they fake a moon landing? Really? Why? What gain is there? I mean, real gain, not tinfoil hat crazy gain.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"