TelBoy

Julio, i completely agree with you, but when you have somebody as supercilious as that marring things, sometimes threads just die from the negative energy. Let's hope he can keep his self-righteous preachings to himself from now on, and that the interesting discussion can continue.

Geezer, you're phrasing it like Olly did, and we could bat this over the net all day like a game of ping pong. I don't believe in God because there's no proof, i don't believe in the moon landings because there's no proof. In that sense and from that angle, they're identical, not just similar.

The strongest evidence for the moon landings is the integrity of the astronauts, the strongest evidence for the doubters is the political landscape at the time along with the cumulative doubt from all the things that have had to be refuted by the scientists.

Julio Jordio

I just find it amusing that I seem to see alot of people post on here in the vain of "Beat a man with your argument, not the strength of your arm."

And then become hipocrites by slating someone with abusive posts because they dont agree with that persons particular view/opinion.

For what its worth, I am also skeptical of the moon landings. For many reasons. I think we got there, I just think we were shown what we were supposed to see/hear.

There's a lot of things that cant be explained about the Moon. Its orbit for example. It needs maintaining to stay on its constant orbit. Whats maintaining it? No other planet/moon etc in our Solar system has anything remotely like the same near circular orbit as the Moon. Why is the moon over 1.3 BILLION years older than the Earth if all of the planets in our Solar System were created during the big bang in one instance? Why does the dust on the Moon have a completely different chemical composite to that of the rocks? Surley the dust is from the rocks? (erosion?)

These are just a few of the things that just dont seem to add up. And I agree with Tel that the political climate at the time heaped HUGE pressures on the US Gov to achieve this feat. Some say the Russians would have leaked the info had US faked the Lunar Landings. Co-incidence that the US sent the largest ever supply of food etc to the Russians following the Landing? Perhaps buying their slience?

Its a very interesting subject, and one that I think the majority of people just rule out as ridiculous without having any knowledge on the subject aside from what you saw, were told or saw in photographs.

TelBoy

The cheque's in the post

Julio Jordio

Well........ a bit of reading goes a long way

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

Would you guy be upset if I told you I didn't care either way?

Julio Jordio

Not particularly!

Ignorance is bliss my friend

Julio Jordio

I'd also be interested in hearing Les's response to the points I raised?

TelBoy

The only time i ever think about it is when a thread appears on Scoobynet.


I'd actually have been happier to discuss the subject of the thread, ie going to the moon in the 21st century. But then i don't think it will really affect anyone very much one way or another, unless i'm missing some great big long list of anticipated benefits?

StickyMicky

The Moon Hoax Debate

Julio Jordio

Not one point in that link refers to my points above mate.

Geezer

The moon isn't maintaining it's orbit, it's moving away from us and has been since it's formation

As for it's age, I have not heard that one, but the moon & Earth were not created in the big bang, that was 14 billion years ago. AFAIK, the earth is younger than the moon by about 500 milion years, at 4.5 billion, so I don't really see what you are getting at there.

Without reviewing the a suitbale explanation, I would have thought that the dust constitutes elements of whatever hit the moon (i.e. meteorites, comets etc.) to make the dust. It doesn't seem implausible at all that the dust should have a different chemical make up (obviously some of it won't as it will be shattered moon rock).

But I don't see what your point is here, what doesn't add up? Are you saying you don't believe the moon is real? I don't really follow.

Geezer

Geezer

No, that is completely incorrect.

There is no evidence for the existence of God.

There is plenty of evidence for the moon landings, but you dismiss it. Now I know you have said some people would argue that that there is evidence for God, and we choose to ignore it, but there isn't. The bible is historically incorrect and the things stated it in are in conflict with what can be proven as process governing life, plate tectonics etc etc. Ally to that the fact there are hundreds of other religions with equal claim (or lack of it ) and it all falls apart.

On the moon landings, there are a mountain of evidence, contemporary eye witness statement, most of whom are still alive. Some of the evidence is even available to examine yourself. That is a whole different ball game.

There is nothing you can do to prove the existence of a God. However, there is plenty of evidence for you to examine that whilst I accept cannot totally prove it, the only reasonable explanation is that man walked on the moon.

Your last statement sums it all up......

Things that have had to be refuted by the scientists. Not failed to, but have been, your own words. All of them have been.

Geezer

TelBoy

Stop stop stop. Don't take another step! I didn't read past this bit. There's no need. Believe me (trust me, if you like!), God believers would adamantly, categorically, unequivocally disagree with you about that statement. If you honestly think they don't think there is any evidence for the existence of God then everything else that follows is flawed.

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

The solar system accreted from huge cloud of dust that was the result of a Supernova which itself occurred billions of years ago. It was not formed in an instant right after the big bang - nothing was... it all had to accrete from the primal matter,

The moons orbit is decaying slowly, I can't remember the exact figure but it's something like 2cm a year and way back in antiquity it was WAY larger in the sky than it is now.

The moon tidly locked to the Earth in that only one face points to the Earth at all times

It was formed by a moon sized object (read big ball of rock) smacking into the Earth and virtually annihilating it... the resulting spray of matter formed the moon and the Earth re-assembled (by virtue of the same process as before: Gravity)

All these facts and theories are freely available for research if you go look - or just spend some time watching the Discovery channel

Geezer

Oh I don't disagree with you, but it still stands, there is nothing they can do to prove it. You can however, check the composition of known moon rock against rock from the Apollo missions to verify it's origin. This is the type of stuff I am talking about.

Geezer

lozgti

I still can't get my head round the concept of 'nothingness' pre universe.

Anyway,if they do go back to the moon and use it as a staging post or whatever for our futur planet hopping,I just hope it is like Space 1999.

I loved that program and I had one of those ships

Geezer

I still have somewhere, two in fact. A normal 'transport' Eagle and a cargo one with a crappy little string crane. Ah, nostalgia!

Geezer

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Energy and matter are freely interchangeable; this is why the equation e=mc^2 is so important

The idea is that there was NO matter per se, just 'energy' and for some reason, the energy 'ruptured' and formed the universe in a rapid series of events (not single instant, it took time just not much of it) the energy became the matter that we know.

TelBoy

Yeah but anything is possible if you try hard enough. I mean, you can go buy yourself a bit of moon rock right here right now, not difficult. If America had enough time to gather together enough genuine samples to be able to feed to the public (and let's be clear, as i said earlier, some doubters do think that Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 DID happen), then what's to say that isn't exactly what they did? Again, it puts the odds strongly in your favour, but ultimately it doesn't actually prove a thing.

Regarding the refutations of the scientists. Yeah, the anomolies have been refuted. And if America had anything to keep quiet you'd bet your last damn dollar they'd be refuting anything which came remotely close to proving anything untoward. At the end of the day you're choosing to believe the version of events you've been told because it seems the most likely. That's fair enough. I'm waiting till the proof is there for all to see.

Julio Jordio

The Moon is around 1.3 billion years older than the earth. That's fact.

The comment about the dust being of a different material to the rocks is also fact. Now, I understand that the Moon has had a huge number of meteorites slam into it, but nowhere near enough to alter the dust which covers the entire surface. That's like saying the sand on our beach is made up from Meteorites and not rock/shell/coral erosion.

The point about no other planet having a orbit remotely similar to the moon is also true.

Bahhhh ya know, I'm not going on anymore. Have your opinion, I have mine. And that is that there is something strange about our supposed history of Lunar Exploration. I dont doubt we went there, but there's lots that simply dont add up.

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Ummm.... nope it's not. Every source I've checked shows the ages of the Earth and the moon to be the same....

Oh, and I'm not sure what you mean about the unusual orbit... it has a slightly elliptical orbit as you would expect, but as it is still so close to earth, it is only a small amount. this is perfectly normal for close orbiting moons of any planet, the further out you go the greater the ellipse as the gravitational tidal effect is lessened.

I really can't see what you're getting at, but it appears you're determined to believe something that is not true to simply fit your view.

EddScott

I don't really understand what difference this makes to whether man has been to the moon or not.

I watched a program the other night and there are a few things that need answering but it said the Japanese or Chinese are sending a probe shortly to take photos. Should be pretty obvious if it can't find any evidence and theres not really anything the US can give either country right now to keep them quiet or say "Oh look, theres the yanks little car they left behind" wink wink.

+Doc+

I wasn't directing the comment at anyone in particular, sorry you took it to heart.

With the overwhelming evidence for the moon landings I believe its the sceptics job to prove it didn't happen, the ball is in your court (read your = non believers, not you in particular :s)

Leslie

Interesting that you felt you had to comment and you ask for my take on it all.

Let me assure you that i would welcme a straight discussion with Telboy and if someone disagrees with my point of view I dont find that a reason to dislike him, we are all entitled to our opinions and this is a forum after all which is there so that we can express them.

I do find it a shame when I get an abusive thread back however for no good reason. I may state the straight facts as I see them but I avoid being abusive as far as possible.

In the first place I stated how I felt about the validity of the moon walks and the reasons which helped in my opinions. I then got an unecessarily pretty rude reponse which is what started all this off. My subsequent replies about the moon landings were not even addressed to him personally.

I don't see why I should be accused of being supercilious just for stating my own beliefs. Even if they are different to what someone else was saying. I am not going to metaphorically drop to one knee and say please excuse me for being so previous as to express my own beliefs but this is how I see it!

I also object as I was in another thread to be accused by him of telling lies about my background to the whole of Scoobynet even though he cannot produce any kind of evidence to back it up. Perhap's he would like to explain why he did that! And why should I not ask him that question?

I hope that is a little clearer to you Julio..

Les

OllyK

Well TelBoy, you should be able to eat crow in about 6 months time
[[ Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter ]]

TelBoy

And if they don't specifically send back images of the moon landing sites, what conclusions should i draw?

OllyK

Well to be honest, providing yet more evidence for the CTers isn't the objective, it's about surveying for future landings and investigating if there is water in the polar ice. However, I wouldn't be surpised if they do go over one or more of the sites or the abondoned rovers as part of that process.

More to the point, would you consider those images to be sufficient evidence that we did walk on the moon previously, or will it be hand waved away as more fake NASA footage produced to ensure the big lie isn't uncovered?

TelBoy

I'd accept them, definitely. Can't speak for all doubters, but i would. But i can't believe they'll go all that way and not take the opportunity to put the myths to bed, if that's what they are. We shall see.

OllyK

I suspect the majority will claim any imagery is CGI, they have too much invested in the belief to be able to admit they are wrong.

I'll drop back in Feb and see where we're at!

Klaatu

Interesting subject. I do find some of the official pictures a little odd, multiple light sources, no dust on the landers feet, etch marks behind objects etc etc..