Request: Did we really go to the moon?

[Roxie Faye]

[color=#9933ff]Alright. I'm really lazy, so I'm going to make everyone else do this for me.

One of my teachers (he annoys me to death) is always saying how we never went to the moon - it was a plot to put us ahead of the Soviets. He constantly tells us all this evidence of "oh the flag was waving in the pictures" and "the crosshairs are in the back instead of in the front."

I was just going to ask if anybody has evidence that we [b]did[/b] go, so I can prove him wrong, but I think I'll facilitate this into a bigger discussion:

Do you think we really did go to the moon or not? Let's hear the opinions and any facts you might have to support your opinion. ^_^


P.S.: He also says that the government only releases reports on things they investigate (Roswell, shooting of JFK, the moon landing) 99 years after they happen. Does anybody know what the hell he's talking about?[/color]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='MistressRoxie']P.S.: He also says that the government only releases reports on things they investigate (Roswell, shooting of JFK, the moon landing) 99 years after they happen. Does anybody know what the hell he's talking about?[/quote]
He means it takes 99 years for them to become declassified. Other than that, I really don't have any rock-solid evidence.

[Roxas]

I have no idea wether or not we did land on the moon or not but I dont necescarilly care. But think of it like this, there is said to be no wind in space so how could the flag wave? Also all the cross hairs are soppossed to be in the front of the picture on top of anything. my forth and fifth grade teacher would agree with yours on that fact because he is the one who told me that. Other than that I dont have any evidense that we actually did land on the moon. Sorry.

[TheShinje]

The flag waving is an easy one, because there is no wind on the lunar surface, the flag was propped up using several extending metal "fingers" which held it up for the photos. Theflag "waved" when it accidentally crumpled while the astronauts placed it.

This website [url="http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm"]here, Is a very down-to earth explanations of the anomalies commonly cited as evidence of a hoax.[/url]

Did we land on the moon? Yes, most certainly.

[Zeta]

We went to the moon, quite obvious.

1) The flag waving really pisses me off. It is one of Newtons laws. It reads something like an object will stay in motion until acted upon by another force. With nothing to act against the flag, when they were twisting and turning it to set it up, it will continue to move since there is no outside force to stop it

2) The bogus about there being no stars in the pictures with Earth. Seeing as how Earth is so bright compared to the others stars and being so much closer, it is obvious that it will drown out things that are dimmer than itself if at such distances as there are between the Earth and the stars.

3) A hoax of that magnitude kept secret for so many years? Please. That would be the most elaborate hoax ever. How on Earth could you keep a secret between NASA, the government, and so many other agencies that helped make the program a possibillty?

*shrug* that is my view on the matter. We landed on the moon, those who think otherwise are seeking attention and trying to different.

[Arcadia]

[size=1]You know, I've not heard this argument in a long time and I really don't know much about it to be any sort of help at all. But in a slightly related note, I have a friend who owns this video that [i]his[/i] friend edited and put together. It's supposedly actual NASA footage from the moon landing and the voice overs in it are apparently what was actually said during the event. Things like, "Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket," and "Houston, we are walking, [i]******* walking[/i], on the moon."

I'm not sure how much I actually believe the validity of that video but it was pretty funny.. =p

On a different note, I thought it took 25 years before the government released those kinds of files, and not 99... but it's entirely possible that I'm just talking crazy here.[/size]

[Roxas]

No other force to act on the flag? Hello! Gravity. The moon does have it. Thats also another on of them science laws. I do understand the stars thing however.

[Zeta]

The gravity of the moon is nothing compared to what it is o n Earth. I also never said that the flag never stopped moving. Of course it would stop moving. But right away? No. With only gravity working on it, compared to all the forces acting on it on Earth, it would take longer for it to stop moving. It will stop of course. It isn't like the thing is still moving now, lol. Basic physics.

[James]

[color=#334366]I'm so tired of these conspiracy theories. Seriously, don't people have anything better to do?

Nevermind the fact that the moon landing operation not only resulted in samples being returned to Earth, but that the mission itself required numerous technological innovations to be developed to make it possible (and that those innovations have been put to use in a variety of ways since then).

For this to even be a question at all leaves me in complete amazement, lol.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=James][color=#334366]
Nevermind the fact that the moon landing operation not only resulted in samples being returned to Earth, but that the mission itself required numerous technological innovations to be developed to make it possible (and that those innovations have been put to use in a variety of ways since then).
[/color][/QUOTE]

In mentioning the absolute lack of practical reasoning behind creating (and they did make them) incredibly powerful rockets/spacecraft, you brought up a significant peice of evidence: the samples.

The website clearly refutes any evidence that the footage on the moon was "forged". However, it never actually provides irrefutable evidence that we [i]did[/i] land on the moon. James was on to something, here. The rocks we brought back from the surface of the moon are of such a composition (isotope and isomer-wise) that they could never have been formed on earth in standard conditions. I'm talking the surface rock, not the metal/metalloid bodies of meteorites, etc. Therefore, unless we've developed the technology to manufacture rocks in a specific temperature and pressure (which is ridiculous)... we basically brought back our proof. Tell that to your teacher.

[Roxie Faye]

[color=#9933ff]James - You're telling me. lol. My teacher needs to get a life.

Thank you Drix, for also pointing out the part about the rocks from the moon. And, to everyone else who pitched in with their information (Morpheus, Shinje (sic), and Zeta). I'm so happy I got feedback on this thread. Now I can say something to my teacher the next time he brings it up. *huggles and hands everyone a cookie* ^_^[/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote name='Zeta']1) The flag waving really pisses me off. It is one of Newtons laws. It reads something like an object will stay in motion until acted upon by another force. With nothing to act against the flag, when they were twisting and turning it to set it up, it will continue to move since there is no outside force to stop it[/quote]Zeta, I don't know if you've already been hit for this, but if you don't know what you're talking about, please don't make it up.

If gravity on the moon was that weak, then astronauts would fly off. There is plenty enough gravity on the moon to stop a flag from waving. And it wouldn't keep rippling for a long time [b]because that requires constant force[/b], and that law only applies if it is moving in one direction. But, you're wrong anyway, because the external force of the Moon's gravity is enough to make it hang. So, yeah. [b]Wrong[/b].

And I do think the moon landing is true, though I've never seen the video.[/size]

[Solo Tremaine]

[quote name='Morpheus']He means it takes 99 years for them to become declassified. Other than that, I really don't have any rock-solid evidence.[/quote][COLOR=#503F86]Originally it was only fifty years, but in JFK's case it'll take until 2013 for all of the evidence to be fully available. At least, that's what I'd gathered. But I could be (and probably am) wrong.

I find the idea that it's a hoax less believeable than the idea that it really happened. It just seems entirely impractical, and what would it have made subsequent space journeys if it wasn't real?[/COLOR]

[Zeta]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]Zeta, I don't know if you've already been hit for this, but if you don't know what you're talking about, please don't make it up.

If gravity on the moon was that weak, then astronauts would fly off. There is plenty enough gravity on the moon to stop a flag from waving. And it wouldn't keep rippling for a long time [b]because that requires constant force[/b], and that law only applies if it is moving in one direction. But, you're wrong anyway, because the external force of the Moon's gravity is enough to make it hang. So, yeah. [b]Wrong[/b].

And I do think the moon landing is true, though I've never seen the video.[/size][/QUOTE]

In comparison to the Earths gravity, it is tremendously weak, heh. It is like 1/6 ours. There is only gravity acting on it. Compared to the many forces that would act on it on Earth such as the wind and gravity combined. But there isn't that on the moon. And with a gravity that is 1/6 of ours I think it sounds pretty reasonable for it to not stop as it would here on Earth.


It didn't keep rippling for a LONG time either, lol. It wiggled enough with the astronaut twisting and turning it into the ground. It didn't wiggle for a long time, nor did I say it did for a long time.

And truth be told it doesn't need a constant force in space. Since there is no friction, it WILL keep moving wherever you send it to. The laws on Earth don't apply in space in the same way. There is nothing pushing against something in space, so it will keep going that same direction with the one push you initially give it. No friction, no fore acting against it. Look at the quote below.

" Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

[url]http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html[/url]

It doesn't say in one direction either, Mr. Big Shot.

Hell, I didn't even come up with that by myself. I read that on the NASA website, as well as many other websites awhile back. So you are saying you are smarter than the scientists at NASA and that they are wrong? Please.

Edit: Some examples about you'r constant force bogus.

1) A rocket. After their initial launching of boosters to accelerate them, there is no long a force being acted upon it. The force launched it forward. F=ma. F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration. After the initial acceleration and the boostes stop pushing it forward, there is no longer a force being applie. Since ther is no gravity in space, it continues on its way because there is no force acting against it.


So all the object as to be is in uniform motion, meaning there is no acceleration, it keeps a constant motion, never changing. So without a force to act against this, it will continue to do whatever it is doing.

So the flags motion is it rippling around while the dude put it in the ground and everything. It is rippling, because he is moving it around. And just like here on Earth, gravity doesn't start to take effect right away. The flag on Earth will continue to ripple as the wind dies down, and then finally coming to a rest, haning. The flag on the moon started to slow down in its rippling after the guy stopped, and eventually would come to a stop just like it would here on Earth.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]" Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

Anyone here, feel free to correct me on this, because I'm confident in my position. But the force applied to the flag [i.e. it's motion] when he was 'wriggling' it from side to side as the flag was mounted, would be expended. The flag wouldn't keep waving. Waving, or rippling, requires a constant force. I know about rockets, because a body without the exertion of any other force upon it, will continue as it was. Such as a rocket.

"Tremendously weak" the Moon's gravity may be, when compared to ours, but it is more than enough to cause a flag to hang down, lol. You're not the only person here who has studied physics. [/size]

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]" Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

Anyone here, feel free to correct me on this, because I'm confident in my position. But the force applied to the flag [i.e. it's motion] when he was 'wriggling' it from side to side as the flag was mounted, would be expended. The flag wouldn't keep waving. Waving, or rippling, requires a constant force. I know about rockets, because a body without the exertion of any other force upon it, will continue as it was. Such as a rocket.

"Tremendously weak" the Moon's gravity may be, when compared to ours, but it is more than enough to cause a flag to hang down, lol. You're not the only person here who has studied physics.

[b]I have to agree with the baron- it's the law of kinetic energy... and I also believe that the moon landing really happened. You can see their footprints on the moon's surface if you are fortunate enough to have a good telescope and know where to look.[/b]

[b]And -about the flag and whether or not it would continue its pattern of motion-any amount of gravity would eventually diminish the energy needed to sustain the flapping of a flag in the absence of the original cause of energy (the astronaut). It just takes longer on the moon for a flag to drop than it does on earth. The earth's gravity will pull a flag down quickly when the external force is removed (wind, etc...) but because there is less energy and force in the gravitational pull of the moon, it occurs at a slower rate... but it has to occur if there is no other force acting upon it.[/b][/size]

[Zeta]

[b]And -about the flag and whether or not it would continue its pattern of motion-any amount of gravity would eventually diminish the energy needed to sustain the flapping of a flag in the absence of the original cause of energy (the astronaut). It just takes longer on the moon for a flag to drop than it does on earth. The earth's gravity will pull a flag down quickly when the external force is removed (wind, etc...) but because there is less energy and force in the gravitational pull of the moon, it occurs at a slower rate... but it has to occur if there is no other force acting upon it.[/b][/size]

Which is what I said. ;) Right here.

[i]So the flags motion is it rippling around while the dude put it in the ground and everything. It is rippling, because he is moving it around. And just like here on Earth, gravity doesn't start to take effect right away. The flag on Earth will continue to ripple as the wind dies down, and then finally coming to a rest, haning. The flag on the moon started to slow down in its rippling after the guy stopped, and eventually would come to a stop just like it would here on Earth.[/i]

:rolleyes:

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Except for the fact [b]that it would not[/b] [bolded for clarification] continue to ripple. Zeta, that's the fact of the matter. Sure, it may float, but it would be in stasis, it would not continue to ripple.[/size]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I'm pretty sure we went to the moon. We [i]had[/i] to keep up with the soviets some how and they had already sent people to the moon prior to 1969. So your teacher's not only a moron, he's a moron who doesn't know jack.

Heck, I even went to Neil Armstrong Elementary school for 2 years...if that isn't proof then I don't know what is.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]I'm pretty sure we went to the moon. We [i]had[/i] to keep up with the soviets some how and they had already sent people to the moon prior to 1969. So your teacher's not only a moron, he's a moron who doesn't know jack.

Heck, I even went to Neil Armstrong Elementary school for 2 years...if that isn't proof then I don't know what is.[/color][/QUOTE]

I'm not disagreeing with you here CHW...but there are some flaws in your logic.

The Soviets did send several successful spacecraft to orbit or flyby the moon. They were the first to successfully land something on its surface. However, no soviet mission actually sent cosmonauts to the lunar surface. I don't know where you are getting the information that Soviets have sent people to the moon... they were unmanned vehicles, if my Google search serves me.

Your point isn't really valid at all. Landing for the sake of "beating the Russians" could be evidentially supported by both a real or fake lunar landing. Don't you think it would have been far more practical and cost-effective to produce an incredible propaganda movie of Astronauts landing on the moon that would even fool the Russians? While I believe we did set foot on the moon first I don't believe our motivations support the argument against a "fake" landing at all.

Not only that, Neil Armstrong is just famous name. I sincerely doubt that because you went to a school named after the guy, there's any significant increase in the credibility and understanding of the lunar projects at your school than there is at any other. I mean, let's say the whole thing was fake. Why shouldn't they keep the ruse going by celebrating the lunar landing by dedicating important buildings or exhibits after the heroes?

On a lighter note, has anyone seen the video of a 70+ year old John Glenn taking down a reporter in a single punch for claiming the entire space program was a hoax? Great stuff... if you can find a link to a vid...*chuckles*

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]I'm not disagreeing with you here CHW...but there are some flaws in your logic.

Your point isn't really valid at all. Landing for the sake of "beating the Russians" could be evidentially supported by both a real or fake lunar landing. Don't you think it would have been far more practical and cost-effective to produce an incredible propaganda movie of Astronauts landing on the moon that would even fool the Russians? While I believe we did set foot on the moon first I don't believe our motivations support the argument against a "fake" landing at all.

On a lighter note, has anyone seen the video of a 70+ year old John Glenn taking down a reporter in a single punch for claiming the entire space program was a hoax? Great stuff... if you can find a link to a vid...*chuckles*[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Real or fake the height of the Cold War was during the 50's and 60's. What better way to feel that we 'beat the Reds' than the space race.

And I'm gonna go find that link now.

Oh, And Drix, Nascar stole your pirate idea. :eek: [/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Real or fake the height of the Cold War was during the 50's and 60's. What better way to feel that we 'beat the Reds' than the space race.

And I'm gonna go find that link now.

Oh, And Drix, Nascar stole your pirate idea. :eek: [/color][/QUOTE]

This is certainly off topic: I did see that pirate commercial and was pleased up until the disgusting nascar logo appeared. I have now changed my current priority after conquering the world from, "Celebrate with family" to "Destroy Nascar". I can't believe they defiled the uberness of pirates with the monotony and pathetic-ness of NASCAR. I'm sure Henry Morgan rolled in his grave... *sighs*

Meh, I thought of it first ;)