It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moon Landing

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Ugh anyone who thinks we DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON RAISE YOUR HAND!

Ok all those with their hands up...are IDIOTS!



Democratic Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson described this launching of Sputnik in 1957 as "a second Pearl Harbor" in its effect on America (Krige 82).
Since the end of World War II, Americans felt technologically superior to the rest of the world, and they used this as a bargaining chip and a sense of security.

Until 1957, most of the West thought of Russia as a backward nation, which was far behind the Americans in the technology race. The launching of Sputnik forced all of America to realize that the Soviets were not technologically inferior, and could be more advanced than the West.

Sputnik impressed most of the world so much that some began to believe that communism could rival American capitalism. At the time, America and the Soviet Union were both trying to persuade third world countries that their economic system, either capitalism or socialism, was better. Sputnik proved to the world that the Soviets could compete with the Americans and gave a concrete example of how much advancement Russian communism had accomplished.

After the launch of Sputnik, Americans were shocked that the Communists were ahead in the technology race and they wanted to dedicate more money and effort into regaining the lead. Sputnik caused a great sense of fear in America.

Some American scientists believed that the Russians could send a man to the moon in just a few years after the launch of Sputnik. In fact, just 2 years after Sputnik I, the Russians sent the first spacecraft to the moon. The fight for national pride and to restore America as the technological leader of the world fueled the space race.

The United States needed to win the space race not only to spread Democracy but to show the rest of the world that we are more advanced than the Communists. It also would demonstrate to the world that the United States was the country you should be investing in. What better way to show that to the world then to put a man on the moon. At the time our rockets were less reliable than the Russians and most scientists at the time thought it would be impossible to go to the moon. President Kennedys said in his Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

America had no choice but to win. Considering the importance to win the space race, I think it would have been likely that the government would fake the landing and not risk everything on an impossible pipe dream. It would have been irresponsible of the US government not to fake the Moon Landing.




posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Thats all very nice lizard, but it doesn't change the fact that the Moon Landings did indeed happen.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
Thats all very nice lizard, but it doesn't change the fact that the Moon Landings did indeed happen.


Then we can agree to disagree, but it would make more sense to fake it.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Not at all.

Remember the whole time the Soviets were watching extremely closely. It would be quite hard to fool them all the way. I think the risks of NASA being exposed in hoaxing the US public outweigh the risks of not having bragging rights.

Isn't it more likely the US was first there because they made it such a priority? Whereas the USSR already had a pile of firsts up its sleeve...



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The thing that cracks me the most is that the people who say we didn't go to the moon because of the multiple shadows from the moon photos. They say how can there be multiple shadows with only one light source.

The funny thing is, is that there are actually 3 light sources.

1. The Sun
2. The Sun's reflection off the moon itself
3. The Sun's reflection off the Earth, which by the way is WAY brighter than the Sun's refelction off the Moon.

We did go the Moon, period. Nuff said



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
Not at all.

Remember the whole time the Soviets were watching extremely closely. It would be quite hard to fool them all the way. I think the risks of NASA being exposed in hoaxing the US public outweigh the risks of not having bragging rights.

Isn't it more likely the US was first there because they made it such a priority? Whereas the USSR already had a pile of firsts up its sleeve...


Good point Kano.

Im curious if Russia would have been able to track the rockets progress through the atmosphere and into space, and how difficult that would have been. If they could easily debunk a faked mission by the US it would be a serious stumbling point in the theory.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The view that the moon landing was faked is absurd, to say the least. We can see the American flag up there with telescopes. How put it there, the aliens ?



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
There are still some anomalies that I haven't heard an explanation for like the reflections of structures that aren't on the moon. And the one where the pic is taken higher than it chould have been because its mounted on the chest.

Anyone care to explain these?



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizardI?m curious if Russia would have been able to track the rockets progress through the atmosphere and into space, and how difficult that would have been. If they could easily debunk a faked mission by the US it would be a serious stumbling point in the theory.


Yes they could. They could also track the re-entry.

Plus they could monitor the signals the Missions were sending back to Earth and clearly see where the signals were coming from.

Incidentally, because I'm feeling lazy, here is my standard moon hoax reply, read the links in it, they cover any questions you might have:

There is no 'evidence' against the moon landings that hasn't been solidly and repeatedly debunked.

A few sites:

www.clavius.org...

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

www.badastronomy.com...

Or you could go to NASAs site and search on Moon Hoax.

Now, on the other hand we have the fact that the Russians could tell the landings werent faked from the direction of the radio signals (they would have kicked up a fuss if they could disprove it). The fact that a couple hundred kilos of moon rocks were brought back and have been examined by thousands of geologists on Earth, all of whom can see that the rocks are completely unlike anything on earth and would be utterly impossible to create artificially. Also of course the fact that three missions placed Laser ranging reflection devices on the moon.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



There is also this picture of the Apollo 15 landing site by a lunar orbiter.

www.space.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
The view that the moon landing was faked is absurd, to say the least. We can see the American flag up there with telescopes. How put it there, the aliens ?


No we can't. Not even the Hubble telescope can see anything on the moon that small. Where did you get your facts?



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faceless
And the one where the pic is taken higher than it chould have been because its mounted on the chest.

Anyone care to explain these?


Is the moon perfectly flat? Of course it isn't. Could one of the astronauts have been standing at a higher elevation? Of course one was. The moon is very uneven and it is certainly possible that one was higher than the other. Is that all you've got?



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
camera equitment doesnt work in space thats my story an im sticking to it.
[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Trance]

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Trance]


jra

posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Why wouldn't camera equipment work in space? They did have special cameras and special film cartridges. It's not like they brought your everyday average camera.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Its almost funny to me that we could create a ship to go to the moon, have special camera's and cartridges to take pictures but then someone will say our movie technology was not up to speed to fake the landing. My father in law who just recently died of cancer told me right before he died that he was involved in the whole hoax and help build all the diffrent sets for the moon landing to be filmed on.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join