Jump to content

Have we landed on the moon?


munlander1
 Share

Home many of you believe we have landed on the moon?  

164 members have voted

  1. 1. With people, we have landed on the moon.

    • You agree with this.
      157
    • You disagree with this.
      5
    • You are in between on the matter.
      2


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Darnok said:

I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying I suspect it didn't happen in exact way official version tells us.

No, you said there is not enough evidence. There actually is. Pretty much every aspect of the Apollo missions is public, including peer-reviewed research from scientists of all nationalities. All you need to do is look for it. Try http://scholar.google.com for starters.

What evidence are your suspicions based on ?

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Without Russians Americans wouldn't have enough inspiration. So, in some sense this is a collective achievement.

They wouldn't have reason to start space race... and that is why united humanity didn't go further than USA in space exploration, because there was no reason to push this technology further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

#1) I am american, do I get to say "we"

And?

 

Quote

#2) Your logic is incorrect. That's like arguing that we can't say that "Mammals landed on the Moon" because not every mammal went to the moon. Its like saying Human's didn't land on the moon because not all humans went. Humans did land on the moon. We are Humans. Soviet humans did not, Chinese Humans have not (time may change this), but without any qualifiers, humans have landed on the moon.

Your way of  thinking is flawed by united humanity propaganda. Why nobody is saying "we discovered America"? We are saying "Christopher Columbus discovered America", but he didn't done that alone. He didn't spend his own money to get there, he had crew, he had informations from other sailors and travellers about "how to reach India". Yet nobody is saying it was achievement made by entire humanity... because it was done long before united humanity propaganda started and this achievement is labelled correctly. While newer achievements are labelled as "ours", I am not fan of US, I do criticize most of US action for past 20-25 years, but saying "we" landed on Moon is not fair.

Also if you think that Moon landing is achievement done by entire humanity then maybe "we" should also say that dropping nuclear bombs in Japan is also achievement done by entire humanity? :)
Entire nuclear branch of technology isn't work of single man nor single nation, so why there is no united humanity achievement "we nuked cities"?
 

 

Quote

#3) The last Chinese mission to the moon did return evidence of our landing, their orbiter photographed the landing sites, with the tracks and descent stages still there.

As far as the technical details, I'm sure it went as described. The telemetry data was there for any interested nation to observe (the soviets sure were tracking it). Grounf stations around the world helped track the spacecraft and communicate (if the Aussies helped with communication and telemetry, do they get to say "we" ?)

The hardware is all known. Heck, soviets were even allowed inside an Apollo spacecraft while it was operating. There's still a Saturn V on display, I've seen it. International observers saw the launches.

The political backstory? the details of the private conversations that went into getting funding for this, other political motivations for JFKs "we choose to do this... " speech?

Sure we probably don't have the entire backstory there. I'm sure some senators and congressmen used this multi-billion dollar project to line their pockets or the pockets of their campaign contributors.

That is no reason to support conspiracy theories about the mission itself.

Like I said, I am not saying that there are no tracks or pieces of equipment on the Moon, I am not so sure they got there just like official version tells us :)

As evidence you should know that NASA lost original recordings, what makes me super suspicious.
Another thing is how NASA is protecting its prototypes https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/07/nasa-lunar-vehicle-prototype-auction-apollo-missions ... would you throw into garbage prototype of working lunar rover?
And why technology developed during Apollo mission wasn't developed any further, instead they turned all their work into something very different like space shuttles. If you have super expensive, working and tested technology there is no reason to start absolutely new technological branch to achieve even smaller result.
Unless your technology doesn't work and you wasn't able to send manned mission with it, instead you sent unmanned mission to leave some equipment and tracks :wink:

 

Edited by Darnok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not claiming there is a "united" humanity. Much of what humanity has accomplished is due to conflicts within humanity. Much knowledge spreads not be deliberate sharing, but through theft and imitation.

There is nothing wrong with defining a large group so long as a real connection exists. A real connection does exist. I do not understand your objection, or a logical leap towards this idea of a "united humanity" which no one has claimed.

Of course people are more likely to take a collective view of good accomplishments, and a narrow view of undesirable accomplishments. I would take the step to say humanity has nuked itself. Lets not pretend that any other belligerent nation wouldn't have done the same thing. The axis powers certainly wouldn't have hesitated, the USSR wouldn't have hesitated.

 

*edit* oh,k and your link... that is another example of a logical leap. It contains no support for your claim that "NASA is protecting its prototypes"

Edited by KerikBalm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

They wouldn't have reason to start space race... and that is why united humanity didn't go further than USA in space exploration, because there was no reason to push this technology further.

Yes, that's what they call "motivation". 
Probably, that was the only time when NASA/NACA could hear "Shut up and take my money" rather than usual "blah-blah, too expensive". As always, no (...)hurt - no money.

59 minutes ago, Darnok said:

And why technology developed during Apollo mission wasn't developed any further, instead they turned all their work into something very different like space shuttles. If you have super expensive, working and tested technology there is no reason to start absolutely new technological branch to achieve even smaller result.

They had several further programs at once: Apollo-Venus (Skylab twin sister), large orbital station, reusable spaceplane.
But after the funds got cut, the large station shrinked down to Skylab and only one direction left for choice: large station and shuttle.
As the electronics become mor reliable, so militarists got the unmanned satellites, and were no more very interested in crewed stations.
So, a shuttle was the only choice with chances to survive. And even for this, NASA had to co-operate with military customers, so Space Shuttle differs a lot from original plans - to fulfil military fantasies which have been never really used, like returning sats, getting onto polar orbits, etc, and with solid boosters instead of original liquid ones.
At least, I have read this.

59 minutes ago, Darnok said:

flawed by united humanity propaganda.

The very first living beings in space were bi... she-dogs (Laika, Belka and Strelka). So, the Caninity was first in space.
Of course there were also flies, worms and so, but we despise those losers.

The very first living beings arrived to the Moon were tortoises (in Zond-5 probe ship). (Also they were the first beings returned alive from far space.)
So, the Tortoisity (or more broad - Reptility) was first near Moon.

Can the poor Humanity be mentioned as the first at least somewhere?

P.S.
Wise and clever Felinity avoids this sick idea with rockets at all, sending just one deputy.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not to add thas us/we in chinneese is women ^^ /freetaunt @gender mode on/off +linguistig genalogia & settuppokate (this is where as a lite communicant autist i "laugh" a lot at IT.)

Edited by WinkAllKerb''
laugh might not mean what you think i mean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

No, not belief, EVIDENCE. Big difference. As with every other scientific fact, there is plenty of supporting evidence.

But if you all you've seen of the moon landings are pictures and videos, then it is up to you to decide whether or not you believe we have landed on the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

No, not belief, EVIDENCE. Big difference. As with every other scientific fact, there is plenty of supporting evidence.

but if all you've seen of the moon landings are pictures and videos, then how do you know that these are not fake? That is why the question should be about belief, since it is up to you, the viewer, whether or not you believe what you see. If you saw the event with your own eyes, or spoke to an astronaut who did, then it is a different story. However, in this conversation many (not saying all, just many) of us have not done the above, and there for should just answer if you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, nascarlaser1 said:

but if all you've seen of the moon landings are pictures and videos, then how do you know that these are not fake?

Because you can examine the pictures and videos, along with the other evidence, and realize that it would be a hell of a lot harder (if not impossible) to fake it all than to actually do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

53 minutes ago, razark said:
hour ago, nascarlaser1 said:

but if all you've seen of the moon landings are pictures and videos, then how do you know that these are not fake?

53 minutes ago, razark said:

Because you can examine the pictures and videos, along with the other evidence, and realize that it would be a hell of a lot harder (if not impossible) to fake it all than to actually do it.

And also, considering how much there is for free that you can examine beyond pictures and videos, that person would bear some blame for his own incuriosity.  One might take this into account when considering how well he evaluated the situation when he "chose to believe" his conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-01-31 at 8:10 AM, Darnok said:

"Have we landed on the moon?" - no we haven't. Only Americans landed on Moon. This wasn't international mission it was single-nation mission

Yay! for tribalism but Boo! for accuracy. Even ignoring the long list of Operation Paperclip scientists and engineers, how about folks like Owen Maynard and the team that went with him from Avro to NASA, don't they count too? How about all those companies like Heroux-DEVTEK that NASA contracted the actual work out to, don't they count?

NASA's programs are not and never have been purely American efforts.

Edited by Nathair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/01/2017 at 7:43 PM, magnemoe said:

*con spy race i theo ry* ^^

well but you forget about one thing cleopatre and cesar were farting respectively 43 and 41 time a day, how do i know i was born 2000 years ago or so :wink: well i wasn't born when earth make it to the moon

Edited by WinkAllKerb''
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

well but you forget about one thing cleopatre and cesar were farting respectively 43 and 41 time a day, how do i know i was born 2000 years ago or so :wink: well i wasn't born when earth make it to the moon

??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I voted the third option because I think only half people landed in the Moon. Thank you.

I'm calling your bluff on the "You are in between on the matter". You did not vote for it.

Edited by munlander1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nathair said:

Yay! for tribalism but Boo! for accuracy. Even ignoring the long list of Operation Paperclip scientists and engineers, how about folks like Owen Maynard and the team that went with him from Avro to NASA, don't they count too? How about all those companies like Heroux-DEVTEK that NASA contracted the actual work out to, don't they count?

NASA's programs are not and never have been purely American efforts.

And not for nothing, but it takes a particularly insular type of person that doesn't assume that "we" in this context is referring to our species...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, munlander1 said:

I'm calling your bluff on the "You are in between on the matter". You did not vote for it. Why? I checked. 2 of the people in the "you disagree with this" interested me. We have at least 2 non-troll people.

: OOOOOOOO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...