Moon Landings: Real or Hoax?

[KatrynKat]

he's not the only troll on the forum....

there are many bridges to cross and many a troll guarding each bridge....

[Tribble]

Jamin has lost his edge - we have younger trolls now

[Molean]

Fake!

[THE_STIG]

@Tribs. I wonder who that could be.....

[Friar Tuck]

If you disagree with the norm you have to be a troll

I am not disagreeing. I am just sitting on the fence and not picking a side like Sweden. There is no way to prove that they were or weren’t there.

he's(as referring to me) not the only troll on the forum....
there are many bridges to cross and many a troll guarding each bridge....

Firstly, troll does not mean disagreeing with the norm, well not in SA. Thus I am not one.

Jamin has lost his edge - we have younger trolls now

We have younger trolls now training to assassinate us all. First they take our land, and then we they take our lives.

This has nothing to do with the Moon Landing.

[StarBound]

If it was a hoax then the goal would have been to beat Russia to the moon and what better way to do it than to fake it? The only thing you'd get from a moon landing now is HD with 3D

[Kronos]

Well, just looking at this thread, I can only assume that the lot of you are trolling. (Apart from our super spammers Tribble and KK ) because no one post after Stuart's thread resurrection could possibly be taken seriously...

[KatrynKat]

he's(as referring to me) not the only troll on the forum....
there are many bridges to cross and many a troll guarding each bridge....

Firstly, troll does not mean disagreeing with the norm, well not in SA. Thus I am not one.

wasn't referring to you...

Stig asked where Jamin is (he's our resident main troll)....
but he's not the only one on the forum....

and i know what the roll is of a troll...
and you ain't one of them....

@Kronos: i ain't a super spammer....
anyway... cute cheeks, how you doing?

[KALSTER]

Well, just looking at this thread, I can only assume that the lot of you are trolling. (Apart from our super spammers Tribble and KK ) because no one post after Stuart's thread resurrection could possibly be taken seriously...

*Like*

[THE_STIG]

There should be a warning sign "Danger there be Trolls"

[StarBound]

There should be a warning sign "Danger there be Trolls"

But are you gonna send them back under the bridge or back into the kitchen?

[Stuart]

Well, just looking at this thread, I can only assume that the lot of you are trolling. (Apart from our super spammers Tribble and KK ) because no one post after Stuart's thread resurrection could possibly be taken seriously...

Well, let's face it, in a thread where people actually believe that the moon landing was a hoax, there's bound to be a good percentage of posts that cannot be taken seriously.

[THE_STIG]

There should be a warning sign "Danger there be Trolls"

But are you gonna send them back under the bridge or back into the kitchen?

that depends...

[Ron2K]

Right folks, can we please get back on topic here?

[CapNemo]

Do we really care that there is an alien observation post there and that is the reason that they never went there

[THE_STIG]

Do we really care that there is an alien observation post there and that is the reason that they never went there

But they did go there......

[Friar Tuck]

But they did go there......

Did they really? We will never know. There is now way to determine if they were there or if the weren’t there.

But let us give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they did actually land and explore the moon. But if one does that, why didn't they go back to the moon?

There will always be an uncertainty if it really did happen.

Q1: Why did the flag move as if was blown by wind? Is there a scientific explanation for the movement flag?
Q2: Was the movie shown to thousands edited or actual film?
Q3: Did they use the money to go to the moon or was it used for other endeavors?
Q4: Why aren’t they going back to explore some more? Is it because there is no need for more exploration? Did they encounter an alien race and does not want to go public?

[Anakha56]

Q1:


Q2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8155045.stm

Nasa restores moon landing film

The US space agency, Nasa, is marking the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11, which took into space the first astronauts to walk on the moon.

At a news conference, it revealed newly-restored footage of the moon landing, including Neil Armstrong's first step onto the lunar surface.

The film was restored by a Hollywood company, which had already spruced up films such as "Citizen Kane".

Other Apollo 11 events include a concert and a free "Moonfest".

Former astronauts are at Cape Canaveral in Florida - from where Apollo 11 took off - and will visit an exhibition about the Apollo missions, which includes a rare collection of space suits.

The lunar footage, screened to journalists in Washington, is part of a $230,000 (£140,000) restoration project.

The four selected scenes showed Neil Armstrong and then Buzz Aldrin stepping on to the lunar surface, the astronauts putting up a commemorative plaque and the raising of the American flag.

The original footage was filmed by a video camera on the lunar module, in a non-standard format which US television channels could not use. It was beamed back to earth, and then converted into a TV-friendly system.

But this badly degraded the images.

The space agency says it probably deleted the original footage in the 1970s and 80s, when it had a tape shortage and needed to reuse them.

So engineer Richard Nafzger and his research team spent three years searching for copies worldwide. He found footage in Australia and at the CBS television studios in Houston, as well as reels of tape in Nasa's own huge archive vaults, which had not been viewed for 36 years.

The Hollywood company, Lowry Digital, is restoring two-and-a-half hours of the material. Nasa expects to release the full version in September.

Q3: See 1 & 2. Money was used to advance technology to A: Go to the moon B: Advanced lifestyle, my server rack would be a mess without velcro...

Q4: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/usecon ... index.html Recession. You cant go to the moon without money. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA take a look at NASA's budget. Without the Cold War push you can see a decline in the amount they have to spend and since NASA has other commitments I reckon the "Been there, done that" attitude kicked in and allowed them to focus on other research fields: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/index.html But yeah lets go to the moon again...

If you want to debate this then please provide proof supporting your theories...

[THE_STIG]

I agree with you fully. They did indeed go to the moon and did not go back because they did not have the money. Going to the moon now would be impossible because of the current financial situation.

I would like to see that restored footage

[Friar Tuck]

@Anakha56, Thank you.

I knew if someone answered all these questions the correct the facts would have been obtained.(If you don't agree please list sources)

Now that this is settled and they did indeed go to the moon, There is still some unanswered questions:
Q1: Will they go back to the moon?
Q2: Why didn't they go back(Present)?
Q4: Why space exploration when we barely know our own planet?

My Answer To:
A1: Yes, most probably, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/const ... n/cev.html, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... _back.html,
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-02/tech ... _s=PM:TECH.

A2: I think they didn't go back because, they went to mars(or did they), but why mars and not the moon?(Sorry to answer the question with a question)
A3: Use your discussion techniques or your Imagination.

I agree with you fully. They did indeed go to the moon and did not go back because they did not have the money. Going to the moon now would be impossible because of the current financial situation.

I would like to see that restored footage

Google: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1637021814(They added colour)
NASA : http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html

[IcePick88]

So NASA in their infinite wisdom thinks that the moon is sufficiently explored from the samples they returned to earth? So no reason to go back then??

The avg cost to launch a space shuttle is $450mil. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/abo ... aq.html#10

Between the 5 space shuttles (Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavor) they made 135 flights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program
$450mil x 135? I can't even read that off a calculator. $60750000000.

No money?

So with their wealth, they could have done one last hurrah and sent some people to the moon and capture the moon in full color HD. But no. They did it in the 60's and 70's and not again. So people have to be content on watching black and white footage and shaky radio comms.

[Kronos]

What the naysayers seem to not understand is that spending almost $1 billion to go to the moon just to silence conspiracy theorists would be absolutely ludicrous.
They don't care if some idiots don't think that they went to the moon. After all, some people still think the earth is flat.

Every $ they spend on a mission is spent to help further scientific study in one way or another. Even if it is just to create or test technology for future missions.
If they did go back to the moon, it would be to set up a test base to test technology for a manned mission to Mars.

[Stuart]

I knew if someone answered all these questions the correct the facts would have been obtained.(If you don't agree please list sources)

Those questions have all been answered dozens of times decades ago, and still people have their little conspiracy theories.

Edit: In fact, had you bothered to read the resurrection article you would have seen the answer to your first question in a little box at the bottom of the page.

[IcePick88]

What the naysayers seem to not understand is that spending almost $1 billion to go to the moon just to silence conspiracy theorists would be absolutely ludicrous.

This is just a defense mechanism from NASA. Why should we spend more money on something we already did. Bullocks.

For something so significant like LANDING on the moon, they sure do not put much value on it. "Oh, meh, we landed on the moon a couple of times. It's not really such a big deal, so we will not return in the next 25 years."

If they really wanted to build a forward operating base for future missions to Mars or other close planets, they should have built it on the moon and not in low earth orbit. Storage space for things like food, water and fuel is abundant on the moon, but with the ISS, there are limited space storing big amounts of anything really.

The moon is the closest other celestial body to earth to operate as a base, so it makes sense to build something on it.

[rustypup]

This is just a defense mechanism from NASA.

you are aware that NASA has been hamstrung because the states would prefer to blow 80% of their annual budget on invading countries and fighting "the war on drugs" to achieve 0% increase in national security and -30% decrease in the illegal drug trade?

put that way, if the advertising money poured into professional sports were instead allotted to organisations like NASA, our moon would have harsh mistress'd a long time ago...