I've never really thought much about this before..but we watched a video in my class yesterday and there are A LOT of things that makes us ever landing on the moon questionable. Just off the top of my head..potential astronaut whistleblowers dying in freak accidents, the flag blowing while they are planting it (supposedly no wind on the moon), pictures with identical landscape backgrounds when they were supposedly over 2 miles away, objects with shadows that arent parallel (the only light source on the moon is the sun, so all shadows would be parallel. There are more that I cant think of right now..

Im not saying seeing this makes me think we've never been on the moon..but it definitely brings up some questions. I seen something that like 20% of Americans think we've never been there. Im curious to see what others think.

Sorry dont know the name of the video or have any links, but im sure its pretty easy to find stuff on it.

Moon conspiracy theorists = 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

If you are pressed to ask them how to fake it, it is actually more impressive than the underlying act, assuming they can provide an explanation. Normally, they can't, and if they do the explanation brings up a multiple of more questions than the actual event.

The best question is, why do humans buy into this BS?

I'm always up for a conspiracy. A lot of what you say is interesting. I would to see how a NASA person would respond to those claims

I don't THINK it was a conspiracy, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out one day that it WAS a conspiracy.

jordo212000;674344 wrote:I'm always up for a conspiracy. A lot of what you say is interesting. I would to see how a NASA person would respond to those claims

Ditto.

Scarlet_Buckeye;674348 wrote:I don't THINK it was a conspiracy, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out one day that it WAS a conspiracy.

A conspiracy of what? What was the point? Do you think the shuttle launches were also conspiracies?

Manhattan Buckeye;674342 wrote:.

The best question is, why do humans buy into this BS?

The minute every American buys into the pablum the Feds feed us at every turn is the minute I'm outta here.

The moon landing was not faked. The "evidence" against it has been repeatedly debunked--I think even Mythbusters recently did a show that demonstrated that the landing clearly happened.

People can believe whatever they want, but I don't think it's particularly arguable that the landings didn't happen.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/

I found this article about the Moon Hoax on NASAS's site. Count me in as one of the people who thinks that this whole "conspiracy" is dumb, but whatever.

fan_from_texas;674360 wrote:The moon landing was not faked. The "evidence" against it has been repeatedly debunked--I think even Mythbusters recently did a show that demonstrated that the landing clearly happened.

People can believe whatever they want, but I don't think it's particularly arguable that the landings didn't happen.

+1. The show pretty much dispelled the myths.

Mythbusters took every "theory" about the moon landing being fake and shot it down one by one. There's no argument

jordo212000;674344 wrote:I'm always up for a conspiracy. A lot of what you say is interesting. I would to see how a NASA person would respond to those claims

according to the video, NASA declined to talk about any of it.

Y-Town Steelhound;674369 wrote:Mythbusters took every "theory" about the moon landing being fake and shot it down one by one. There's no argument

we are actually going to watch this next class..it'll be interesting to see

Might as well watch "Loose Change" in class...It is interesting as well, and full of bull-hockey.

I've seen just about all of the conspiracy stuff, some compelling, others not so much. Loose Change doesn't ring a bell though.

The only thing I've not seen sufficiently debunked for my taste was the jet hitting the Pentagon. Just one shot of the thing going into it (obviously a lot more shots available than one)...and it made a hole that was pretty inconsistent with a jet hitting a building, and a black box that, well, just didn't hold up.

I think if you believe myth busters is a credible source for debunking facts (they're constantly wrong for one) then you're also dumb enough to believe these conspiracy theories.

ytownfootball;674393 wrote:I've seen just about all of the conspiracy stuff, some compelling, others not so much. Loose Change doesn't ring a bell though.

The only thing I've not seen sufficiently debunked for my taste was the jet hitting the Pentagon. Just one shot of the thing going into it (obviously a lot more shots available than one)...and it made a hole that was pretty inconsistent with a jet hitting a building, and a black box that, well, just didn't hold up.

Jets are made of aluminum, against one of the most reinforced structures in the world - what do the conspiracy theorists think that happened?

What is the alternative explanation? That is a serious question. My guess is whatever it is will be 1,000,000X dumber than the actual truth.

Conspiracy or not, how did Mythbusters prove that we landed on the moon without actually landing on the moon? I know that sounds dumb, and obviously I haven't seen the show which is why I am asking. What exactly did they debunk?

It happened. Just not the way NASA tries to spin it.

[video=youtube;-Kbw6EkrO7s][/video]

The video is fake. but we have walked on the moon.

Manhattan Buckeye;674409 wrote:Jets are made of aluminum, against one of the most reinforced structures in the world - what do the conspiracy theorists think that happened?

What is the alternative explanation? That is a serious question. My guess is whatever it is will be 1,000,000X dumber than the actual truth.

They ran pilots through flight simulations that had them attempt to fly into the Pentagon, not one of them was successful in doing so, they all crashed prior to reaching their destination. Their explanation was a missile I believe. The reasoning behind it had to do with burying information (funding of black ops? missions- I really don't remember) was housed in the Pentagon offices located at the crash site. They had a lot of evidence to support their theory.

Not to mention that the Pentagon is a secure facility that has more than one camera angle that is being ponied up as evidence.

It might have been Decoded w/Brad Metzler?

"Their explanation was a missile I believe. The reasoning behind it had to do with burying information (funding of black ops? missions- I really don't remember) was housed in the Pentagon offices located at the crash site. They had a lot of evidence to support their theory. "

Doesn't appear this was successful either - the plane crashed before it hit. So it was purely coincidence that it happened the same morning that two airliners flew into the WTC?

What was the evidence again? Black Ops? Random missions? Black helicopters? Seriously?

Either you buy into the whole 9/11 was an inside job completely or none at all. Picking and choosing is simply silly. I think both POVs are completely unfounded, but to take one piece yet accept another takes the unfoundedness (for lack of better words) to a new level.

I've posted this before, but I lived with a guy whose father was part of the clean-up crew at the Pentagon. It was a plane that hit it. Unless the government is so adept at conspiracies (despite their inability to get my tax returns from 2005 correct), the physical evidence was there.

There was another show, maybe not Mythbusters, which was able to replicate a lot of what we saw with the moon landing. Can't remember if they were using all 40-yr old tech, though. By the way, the flag is easy to explain. It gets momentum when the guy moves it/plants it and in a vacuum there is no air resistance for it to settle down, and with much less gravity it would also take time to settle to a standstill that way. That would have to be the dumbest part of a fake, since if it was faked it would have been inside a soundstage where there's no wind.

But of course we landed on the moon.

Raw Dawgin' it;674402 wrote:I think if you believe myth busters is a credible source for debunking facts (they're constantly wrong for one) then you're also dumb enough to believe these conspiracy theories.

I've only seen it a handful of times, but what have they gotten wrong?

Manhattan Buckeye;674448 wrote:"Their explanation was a missile I believe. The reasoning behind it had to do with burying information (funding of black ops? missions- I really don't remember) was housed in the Pentagon offices located at the crash site. They had a lot of evidence to support their theory. "

Doesn't appear this was successful either - the plane crashed before it hit. So it was purely coincidence that it happened the same morning that two airliners flew into the WTC?

What was the evidence again? Black Ops? Random missions? Black helicopters? Seriously?

Either you buy into the whole 9/11 was an inside job completely or none at all. Picking and choosing is simply silly. I think both POVs are completely unfounded, but to take one piece yet accept another takes the unfoundedness (for lack of better words) to a new level.

I've posted this before, but I lived with a guy whose father was part of the clean-up crew at the Pentagon. It was a plane that hit it. Unless the government is so adept at conspiracies (despite their inability to get my tax returns from 2005 correct), the physical evidence was there.

I don't ascribe to the theories, I'm just glad there are people who ask the questions. I don't trust the government any more than I trust the guy on the corner running a Three-card-Monte game. I think we all need to be suspicious and pay attention.