The Flat Earth "conspiracy" and a glaring error by those who suppport it...

a reply to: LondonAirport


I googled that and no "evidence" came up. Do you have a link?

originally posted by: seagull
My grandma's folks had travelled to the US via sail driven ships, steam was still very rare. She herself traveled west in a covered wagon, as the railroads hadn't got where her family wanted to go yet.

Yet in her lifetime, we'd set foot on another world. An airless, rather hostile world to be sure, but another world none the less.

Imagine making a ship that can for the first time travel from UK to US, and after being successful on the maiden voyage - never doing it again.
It has been nearly 50 years since man has claimed to go outside low Earth orbit - the ISS is only about 200 miles above the Earth.
Neil Armstrong said in an interview that they would put a station on the moon - to make it easier to go further into space - but it has never happened.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


Imagine having a supersonic passenger aircraft that could exceed Mach 2 that cut flight times from, for instance, London to New York drastically but never building another one since it retired from service in 2002.

Using your logic, Concorde was fake, right?

maybe there should be a 64 page thread on the "theory" that water is wet.....

a reply to: jimmyx


I hope you have some evidence to back up that theory......

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Itisnowagain


Imagine having a supersonic passenger aircraft that could exceed Mach 2 that cut flight times from, for instance, London to New York drastically but never building another one since it retired from service in 2002.

Using your logic, Concorde was fake, right?

LOL - no.
Why do you think they have not gone (back) to the moon?

a reply to: Itisnowagain


Same logic as yours.

Costs, been there done that, other missions to concentrate on further out in the Solar System and the public were bored after a while, etc, etc.

Why do you think it is all faked?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: jimmyx


I hope you have some evidence to back up that theory......

why would I need that?....oh....you mean for really stupid people....I can't fix stupid....as evidenced from this 64 page thread on why the earth is flat

a reply to: jimmyx


Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Costs, been there done that, other missions to concentrate on further out in the Solar System and the public were bored after a while, etc, etc.

Neil Armstrong said in an interview that they would put a station on the moon so they could go further out into the Solar System - so why build the station 200 miles away from the Earth when they said they were going to build the station 238,855 miles away - outside Earth orbit?

a reply to: Itisnowagain


Neil was not in charge, though, was he?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Itisnowagain


Neil was not in charge, though, was he?

No - Neil was the one talking in a very rare interview.
Not sure what that has to do with the question I asked though- seems like avoidance.
You state that they want to venture into the Solar System so won't bother with the moon - but the moon would be the perfect place to build that mentioned station - not 200 miles up - still in Earth orbit.
I felt sorry for those 3 astronauts who had to lie in front of the world. - have you seen their faces? Shouldn't they be exited and exhilarated that they went to the moon? But their faces tell another story.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Lack of interest and funding.

By 1972, the US public had pretty much lost it's interest in manned space exploration. We'd raced the Soviets and won. So Manned Moon Shots were "old hat"

At the same time, President Nixon was facing pressure here at home. People were more concerned with the cost of living and the cost of the Vietnam War. So Nixon took and axe to the Apollo program, and that was that.

Later on, the push was to have a space station in orbit around the Earth. Not a US effort, but an international one. The ISS is what you get when the countries involved are not willing to go expensive.

Having a base on the Moon doesn't really appeal to the US government. It would be a huge money sink hole, and would not provide any obvious advantage to the US government (no.....using it for war will not work, not if you understand how orbital mechanics work.....and using it to mine materials that we can already get out of the crust of the Earth easier answers another question.).

We're starting to get industry interested in the Moon though, but that's because they're looking at the long term and big picture.

Governments are only concerned with the here and now, the short term, and the public's opinion (to many voters would view a base on the Moon as a waste of money).

a reply to: Itisnowagain


You were the one relying on what Neil said so what are you on about?

200 mile up is a lot more convenient that the Moon, don't you think?

Anyway, we did not need a station to launch Voyager, Cassini, New Horizons, Mars probes etc, did we?

You have been watching too many Bart Sibrel type YouTube videos, if you believe that proven liar then you are just gullible.

You are dissing mankind's greatest ever achievement and I feel sad for you.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
You are dissing mankind's greatest ever achievement and I feel sad for you.

I am questioning the authenticity of the moon landings.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


Yes, I know. It's rather sad and pathetic.

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
We're starting to get industry interested in the Moon though, but that's because they're looking at the long term and big picture.

It has been fifty years - and how much has been allegedly spent on space stuff in that fifty years?
It makes no sense to say that the public or government think it is a waste of money to put a station on the moon when they spend so much anyway.
Why are they interested now?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Itisnowagain


Yes, I know. It's rather sad and pathetic.

I am not the only one in the world to question.
6% of Amercans think it was a hoax and 52% British think it was a hoax - according to google.

The Earth was shown by the astronauts to be a ball floating in space - that image could be faked!!

Reminder:

This is not a Moon Landing Hoax thread.

That's off topic.

Please return to the topic of the OP and stop derailing the thread topic.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


Back to FE, as the Moon Hoax nonsense is off-topic - why would anyone want to fake a round Earth?

What about all the other images of Earth from space?

What about the ISS and before that all the other space stations in orbit such as Almaz, Salyut, Skylab, Mir and Tiangong 1?

Were these all faked too?

If you really think they were, why?