Yes the Landing on the Moon happened. Though, most of tests and operations they did up there were likely military, defense or offensive in some sort of nature, because honestly, would the government pay that sort of money just to go to moon or to go to the moon and set up some sort of crazed weapon of mass destruction?
I have no idea what you just said. You're arguing a point out in left field. Did you even read the quote?
I think it wasnt that they lost the tapes. They lost the ability to play the tapes. The images we saw on tv were a recording of the recording. In other words, they played the original tapes on a screen and videotaped the image on the screen since the original tapes couldnt directly be converted to something that could be played on TV since they used a unique video format. (due to the radiation and what not of space) The problem is that was a one time format to record anything that was never used again and the whole system fell into disrepair. I mean that's pretty common for a lot of technology. Hell, the Soviets invested billions into building a more advanced version of the space shuttle (the Buran) and then proceeded to launch it once and then lose all the technology they invested into making it. Things happen when you stop using the technology.
I think you missed my point. Gravity was defined well before 1969. Even if we had never landed on the Moon or had any video of it, movie-makers probably still would've assumed the same "floaty" behavior anyway, just by definition of gravity. It's unnecessary to have a real concept of low-gravity walking because you have a definition of gravity itself. Thus, the initial "low gravity" look is not something they would make look like whatever they wanted it to. It looks like what low gravity is defined to be: less acceleration downward. As a result, your argument is flawed.
So, a group of people found and successfully identified many moon rocks scattered randomly around the earth (because they look so much differently than other rocks, right?...easily found...) and NASA used those to help reinforce a multi-billion dollar fraud by several hundred thousand people (all which could make millions if they actually opened up and revealed it to any number of news sources), just so we can say, "Darn it we're America! We got there first!" Wow, you so mercilessly shot down that point by B-Bob, good job man, I'd love to hear your solid ideas when it comes to his other 7 points...
"houston the eagle has landed." first words ever spoken on the moon. "houston" being the first. cos thats how we roll playa.
Your argument is flawed. Just because something is defined by nature does not mean we as humans have an understanding of what it looks like or how it will act. For example, we have no idea how a blackhole really looks. By definition it's supposed to pull in everything including light. How to conceptualize that into a movie scene, we can only guess.
And if the moon landing never happened, who's to say movie-makers wouldn't guess low-gravity looked the same way? That's how I would guess it looks.
I'm assuming people who think the Moon landing was fake, don't think our current space missions are real? So what it looks like now compared to before doesn't matter?
But that wasn't the argument. That's why I wasn't sure why you brought up the definition of gravity, etc. Raven was comparing the video of the real moon walk versus what movie makers came up with after that, saying that the real one was more 'real' than the movies. My argument is that if the original video was fake in the first place, comparing movie maker's attempts to recreate a fake video and saying they didn't copy the fake very well is not a valid argument.
No, my original comment was more about movie-makers being unable to imitate actual weightlessness (or low gravity). Maybe that didn't come across in my post. Why would they imitate grainy video from the original moon landings today when we have much more recent footage of what we know is low/zero gravity? And still, with decades of improved technology, they can't seem to get even a reasonable facsimile of weightlessness in film. Not compared to what we see on the original moon landing tapes.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0j_ONmVcXA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0j_ONmVcXA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> I wish NASA would share some of their 1960's special effects technology -- Hollywood still can't pull it off.
I can't state an exact opinion on this because it was way before my time. I can tell you there are plausible information to indicate that it was a hoax and that it wasn't. Eitherway not being there to witness the event has left me sitting on the fence. After all you can't believe everything you see on TV nor what the government tells you. All is an illusion.
Obviously it happened, you'll always find a loon that will claim we didn't land on the moon or that Michael Jackson didn't do terrible things to children. I think the best proof is the human element. Of all the thousands of people that would have had to be involved in a fake moon landing, don't you think some of them would come out and give their story about movie sets and trick photography?
The 60s were a time of innocence. Many who lived in the era was easily manipulated to believe in anything. All the way down to Roswell and Alien abductions.
Oh good lord, heaven please help us all. How about the Holocaust? WWI? The colonization of North America by Europeans? The Magna Carta? Shakespeare? Other important whitey stuff in Europe? Tectonic plates? There is not "plausible information to indicate that it was a hoax (sic)." Not for a discerning, careful, and objective mind. If you find evidence that NASA faked a moon landing compelling, you can find some evidence of a flat Earth compelling. (new thread idea?) It's fine if you want to say "I don't give a rat's ass and I'm not going to spend any time looking at it," and/or "I don't really have the powers of logic needed to examine the evidence before me." What a DEpressing thread. Oy. Sorry I have been kind of D&Ding it here... over n out.
WTF? This is about the moonlanding. What has it got to do with WW2 etc and personal insults? Stick with the topic. I say there are information that provides some compelling evidence for both sides.
