Man on the moon

supersonic

40 years ago this week (or last week). Did they go? Could they have done it really?!

[/i]

whyamihere

Yes, they went.

/topic

supersonic

You are obviously missing the none converging shadows in that pic ;-)

nicklouse

Proof






somewhere

blister pus

yes they went, yes a lot of the pix have been doctored by the NASA airbrushing department but I believe in those cases they were tidied up for PR public consumption reasons.

Hercule Q

on the moon. no helmets? that pic was taken on the beach its in black and white so you cant see the seaweed

Anonymous

Hercule Q wrote:

on the moon. no helmets? that pic was taken on the beach its in black and white so you cant see the seaweed

Bingo - He's got it in one!

Hercule Q

right thats one conspericy down next is the loch ness monster

cat_with_no_tail

Hercule Q wrote:

right thats one conspericy down next is the loch ness monster

Loch Ness Monster never went to the moon.

ramemtbers

yeah space is one big giant vacuum so how are they breathing without that goldfish bowl like helmet on there noggin

.blitz

I remember watching it on TV until I fell asleep. In those days there was very little hype and bs and if somebody said they'd done something, they had.

xtreem

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Hercule Q wrote:

right thats one conspericy down next is the loch ness monster

Loch Ness Monster never went to the moon.

I think they didn't done it. If they did land on the moon why they don't go again now,
and give us a live colourfull coverage. That will stop this debate forever.

cat_with_no_tail

Xtreem wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Hercule Q wrote:

right thats one conspericy down next is the loch ness monster

Loch Ness Monster never went to the moon.

I think they didn't done it. If they did land on the moon why they don't go again now,
and give us a live colourfull coverage. That will stop this debate forever.

I would imagine it's probably in no small part due to the fact that they cant be bothered spending billions of dollars just to prove some tin foil hat conspiricists wrong.

I do think they landed on the moon, I believe that they walked on the moon and did all the other things they said they did.

However, I do think NASA had some other pics made up. wether that was just to save face in case the landing didnt go as planned, or because the pics the Astronauts took were rubbish or the cameras didnt work or just because they wanted it to look more exciting than just some blokes stood on a grey rock. I think that these pics, over the last 40 years, have found their way into the public forum (as these things do).

blister pus

Clangers were there years before anyway

stevieboy

lol @ the clangers

Here's some theories and counter theories.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

xstrathyx

explain to me where their helmets were when this picture was taken, surely they would have suffocated due to the lack of oxygen on the moon????

Personally think its another conspiracy and do not believe they landed on the moon. More likely landed on a desolate piece of desert in nevada or texas.

supersonic wrote:

40 years ago this week (or last week). Did they go? Could they have done it really?!

[/i]

Daz555

Xtreem wrote:

If they did land on the moon why they don't go again now,
and give us a live colourfull coverage. That will stop this debate forever.

There is a small matter that it will cost about $150 BILLION to go back to the moon. Maybe we have better things to spend money on at the moment?

As for the moon landings "If you look for a conspiracy, you will find one. Always."

Anonymous

xSTRATHYx wrote:

explain to me where their helmets were when this picture was taken, surely they would have suffocated due to the lack of oxygen on the moon????

Personally think its another conspiracy and do not believe they landed on the moon. More likely landed on a desolate piece of desert in nevada or texas.

supersonic wrote:

40 years ago this week (or last week). Did they go? Could they have done it really?!

[/i]

Photo was probably taken whilst they were on training excercises in the desert. :roll:

thekickingmule

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Hercule Q wrote:

right thats one conspericy down next is the loch ness monster

Loch Ness Monster never went to the moon.

But I have photo evidence that it has been!!

:P

xtreem

Daz555 wrote:

Xtreem wrote:

If they did land on the moon why they don't go again now,
and give us a live colourfull coverage. That will stop this debate forever.

There is a small matter that it will cost about $150 BILLION to go back to the moon. Maybe we have better things to spend money on at the moment?

As for the moon landings "If you look for a conspiracy, you will find one. Always."

But why did they land on the moon several times back then. Imagine the cost of that.

And before, I did believed they landed on the moon, but because of the Internet now,
I'm not so sure about that.

Btw, there is no point of landing a man on Mars.

Anonymous

Has no-one seen the mythbusters moon landing special then, I take it?

They finished the show with indisputable proof.

blister pus

Daz555 wrote:

As for the moon landings "If you look for a conspiracy, you will find one. Always."

Enduring and persistent conspiracy "theories" arise and gain momentum when serious questions go unanswered. NASA, like any other large governmental institution, continually shoot themselves in the foot by their own lack of communication and willingness to use airbrushing techniques on raw footage so accusations of foul play can and always will be levelled at them, rightly or wrongly.

Hercule Q

thekickingmule wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Hercule Q wrote:

right thats one conspericy down next is the loch ness monster

Loch Ness Monster never went to the moon.

But I have photo evidence that it has been!!

:P

and thats why noones found him in loch ness, he's on the moon!

we're getting good at this conspiracy cracking

supersonic

I wholeheartedly believe they went to the moon - the arguments I have seen against are circular, and weak at best. Slight anomalies do not 'prove' that they did not go - and all of them can be reasonably explained.

xstrathyx

sonic - are you writing a column for NASA today or something lol

hence the "sitting on fence comment"

supersonic wrote:

I wholeheartedly believe they went to the moon - the arguments I have seen against are circular, and weak at best. Slight anomalies do not 'prove' that they did not go - and all of them can be reasonably explained.

blister pus

supersonic wrote:

I wholeheartedly believe they went to the moon - the arguments I have seen against are circular, and weak at best. Slight anomalies do not 'prove' that they did not go - and all of them can be reasonably explained.

Some of them not so easily explained, it takes a professional Astrophotographer to explain exactly how solar and planetary luminescence operates on off planet bodies and how it's effects interact with and effect old camera equipment for the main 'anomalous' lighting arguments to evaporate.

robmanic1

blister pus wrote:

supersonic wrote:

I wholeheartedly believe they went to the moon - the arguments I have seen against are circular, and weak at best. Slight anomalies do not 'prove' that they did not go - and all of them can be reasonably explained.

Some of them not so easily explained, it takes a professional Astrophotographer to explain exactly how solar and planetary luminescence operates on off planet bodies and how it's effects interact and effect old camera equipment for the main 'anomalous' lighting arguments to evaporate.

Yehhhh!

supersonic

In some cases, but a lack of readily available explaination does not disprove they want to the moon.

Anonymous

Actually, most of the "anomalies" can be explained away rather easily by a property of light called "radiance".
You don't need any clever degrees or letters after your name to test it out for yourselves either, just a large dark room, and a single light source.

Seriously, did NO-ONE see the mythbusters special?

supersonic

I might have - and have seen similar progs. They are on Youtube now I think.

Porgy

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Actually, most of the "anomalies" can be explained away rather easily by a property of light called "radiance".
You don't need any clever degrees or letters after your name to test it out for yourselves either, just a large dark room, and a single light source.

Seriously, did NO-ONE see the mythbusters special?

no - what was the indisputable proof?