Staredit Network

I think that that the USA Faked the space thing when the arrived to the moon. it was neil armstrong who was first. My bro said that there was some scientist that said it was a fake cuz the flag was moving, and there is no air in the moon. So, i'm just askin what yalls opinion

Well for sure the moon has no air, but it could have some other type of gas (ex: Hydrogen) that moves about on the moon

no Mill,Army,MA, it can't be.... the US prolly got an actor and went to the mountains and edit the thing.. cuz in the old days, the T.V was BLACK AND WHITE, so they prolly did fake it -_-

The Explanation! Read it and weep, conspiracy theorists. A lot of this stuff is common sense. Here, I'll give you a quick link to the answer to the flag-waving problem. Enjoy.

lol nozumu.. you said " enjoy " like you being smart and all

Anything to get the ratings up, eh Nozomu? From pseudoscience, to that fraud Sylvia Browne.

The planets still have wind, like Neptune.

It's wind can reach up to 1,500 mph, 2,400 km/h.

I just want people to look at things logically, and possibly convert to skepticism. But hey, Drunk, you turned me into this monster. And into a smartass .

Well my Mom says your brother is wrong. And since i love my mom more than you love your brother I'm right and your wrong. [/sarcasim]

Why don't you think things over for yourself and try to form a conclusion that isn't based on 'my brother said so'.

Actually I was watching television one day and this show came on, I forget the name. It had this segment about things the United States could have faked. One of them was the space race. They should a clip of the whole thing and zoomed in on this one rock. It has a letter on it, I forget which one, and they did this interview with one of the people that worked at NASA during the space race and he wouldn't talk about that so he could have been trying to hide something. I personally think it was faked since Russia had already gotten probes and such in space and they were to advanced to lose to the Americans.

There was a letter on one of the "moon stones" hmm... fake...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Phoenix---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The letters were shadows I belive it was a C, pretty easy shape to form in nature. Most of the things people try to say are reasons it was faked (like no stars), are all explained by properties of photograghy.

Lol, you say "convert to skepticism" like it's a religion. It's more like a diagnostic protocol. Seeking alternative explainations, scientific method, law of parsimony, and all that good stuff.

Agreed. But to be a skeptic you have to have faith in your own observatory capabilities, which is sort of like religion. I mean, really, are we actually qualified to judge for ourselves? Our judgement might be flawed. It's hard to not have faith in anything. I, personally, believe that my perception is usually correct, but I could just be deluding myself. That's why it's faith.

I didn't intend for it to come off as if it's a religion, but you I can't really see people believing in God and being skeptics at the same time. It's still a belief system of sorts. We have faith that gravity will still work the same way, for example. Our beliefs are just based on things that have been proven to us.

Sorry to go off on a tangent there, but I have to get this stuff out of my head somehow. Maybe I'll start writing down some notes and write a book in 20 years.

Ok as probably the only true filmographer (yep its a word ) here, no stars is explained by the light reflecting off of the high reflective properties of moon dust. This makes it seem like there's no stars there (trust me thats how it works). The flag waving is easy. There IS an atmostphere on the mopon but it's so ing thin you can't breathe or really interact with it. Anyways why it's moving is simple, there are warmer pockets of air that push the colder ones around on the moon, therefore causing a slight wind or a powerful one. The reason there is a letter is a mix between moon rocks, the moons high reflectiveness and Terra's light both hitting the rock at a good angle.

I don't give a about the space race but I like to explain things. The only thing that can't be explained is how Bush got back into preseidency...

Ugh, solipsism. And maybe there's a glitch in the Matrix!

Ontology and metaphysics are difficult topics that even I'm oblivious to. I don't even know if I'm real, or what reality is. But to me, reality is what I can ascertain to be actual. I touch a hot stove and my hand gets burned. That's reality to me.


First, it helps to define "faith" so we know what both parties are argueing. Dictionary dot com defines faith as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." So when you read something like a biology book, you don't really have faith that the details are accurate because they are firmly rooted on logical and material evidence.

If someone makes a analogy between religious faith and the logical deduction that the sky is still going to be blue the next time you look at it, they are making a flawed analogy. They're comparing something you physically know to be true, something examinable, testable, and provable, with something they believe despite no hard independent evidence for it.

Faith is a belief that is not based on physical or logical evidence. Belief in atoms and germs and that sort of thing is based on evidence. That's the difference. evidence-based beliefs can be tested, measured, and the accuracy of your knowledge can be verified. Faith-based beliefs can't be.

So the next time a scientist tells you that there are microscopic organisms that can cause you to get sick, you're not believing him on faith. If you don't believe him, you can simply test that theory. Also, every theory in science is independantly verified by large numbers of other scientist.

Right now, I have a random map making tip, "To edit/delete doodads (eg: door) in X-Tra Editor: Do not drag select it. Simply click on it once without moving your mouse." I'm not taking that on faith at all. It's based on repeated experiments, been verfied by a large number of map makers, and I could see it for myself if I wanted to.

EDIT: Heh, I know what you're going through Nozomu, it's that big inquisition phase. That is a good thing. Questions lead to thinking, thinking leads to a stimulation of grey matter causing a big headache, and that might lead to answers. And once you reach the answer, more questions come about.

la la la It's a wonderful life la la la.

What about a landing crater where the downward engine thrust of the lander would have blown moon dust out from under it, forming a crater? What about the intense radiation in space, wouldn't there have been some effects on the astronauts? What about solar debris, there's tiny bits of sand out there, flying around at high speed? What about the camera cross hares not showing up ontop of astronauts on the moon?
There's alot of stuff that points to a hoax.. But alot more that points to it being real.

Dude nuclear that crosshair thing doesn't make sense but you are right there is way more stuff that points to the space race victory is valid.

lol bolt, its just an opinion-.-; don't get too hard

Ha, the landing crater is easy. You have to remember that the moon has barely any atmosphere. When something makes an impact on Earth, it pushes air out of the way, making a crater. But on the moon, there's no displacement of air, and so there's no push on the dust around the landing site. The only dust that moved was dust that was contacted by the "legs" of the lander and the actual particles coming from the exhaust vent of the rockets used to slow down the lander's descent. I'm surprised that the crater is as big as it is.

Radiation? You mean either solar radiation, like solar wind, or the layer of radiation that surrounds the Earth. Both the Earth and the moon have poles, and thus magnetic fields that reflect or deflect radiation. In the case of the flight through "open" space, their ship was protected by radiation-resistant panels, probably made of lead. The exposure to the belt surrounding the earth was only for an hour at most, and the damage to the astronauts' bodies was calculated and dismissed as acceptable and not serious enough to warrant medical treatment. The astronauts' suits were protected by radiation-resistant material, as well. But their true savior was the magnetic field of the moon.

Solar debris - again, the magnetic field plays a large role. Plus, the moon has gravity, it's just not as strong as that of the Earth. There aren't any particles floating around on the moon at high speed. Meteors and such are either turned away by the magnetic field or (rarely) punch through and impact the surface, much like Earth (in which case they are considered meteoroids (inside the field) and then meteorites (after impact). There really isn't much solar debris out there in teh first place, space is pretty empty, so the likelihood of an astronaut or even their ship being hit by any particles is extremely slim.

The crosshairs problem, copied from Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site:

Why does it really matter I feel ignorance is bliss and I really don't think it was faked anyway I mean that would be pretty dumb and besides it doesn't seem at all out of reach in my mind anyway, but don't take my word for it go hide in some bushes and get evidence for proof! what're you waiting for? GOGOGO!

lmao nerdyterdy... you never know if it is faked and its not pretty dumb... if russia gets it , then russia gets the fame and not USA

man. I never did even notice that. Lol, you are right..

*chuckles* I used to think this theory was correct too, but there is definite proof that it is not.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html


Very convincing evidence against all the facts presented in that show that said we didn't land on the moon. Refutes all the show's claims... enjoy reading it... or not enjoy reading it if u still want to believe the show was right, it's all very well written and convincing.