Lunar Landings; End of the speculation?

[Grey M@a]

I always thought that conspiracy theoriests always had to pick and choose which bits of information to use. Anything that goes against your view, no matter how valid it may seam you ignore. Anything that remotely supports your course, you exhagerate and downplay any credability issues.

Its the same thing as religion only it makes less money.

Oooooooh hats off to the closing statement, certainly matches my sentiments exactly.

The best theory of the moon landings is the whole shadow argument and how they don't all go the same way, even the picture shows they are on the side of a slope which is anything but even but they expect the shadow to follow a flat surface direction and when confronted they go off to explain the science of light and shadow as if everything is flat XD

Hundreds of them on youtube and they make for entertaining viewing as they all swear down that they know its fake due to sources of friends or sources they can't divulge. It's almost school ground tactics to get their point across

[Dingo]

Now here we have it... the LRO is in orbit and has cameras capable of 1m and 3m resolution of the surface;

Should get some great shots of the Clangers now then!!

[Stringent]

Do they know where they landed? Or has that been lost/forgotten about?

[Grey M@a]

Do they know where they landed? Or has that been lost/forgotten about?

They know where they landed Or should do lol if not they can always check their own website and get a map of all landing spots

[Blitzen]

Im not really sure why anyone cares if man has been to the moon or not anyway.
Its about as interesting as going to North Wales on hoilday.

Also, if it IS true, and its such a massive feat, why has no-one been back there for 30 years?

[nightkhaos]

Im not really sure why anyone cares if man has been to the moon or not anyway.
Its about as interesting as going to North Wales on hoilday.

Also, if it IS true, and its such a massive feat, why has no-one been back there for 30 years?

Why hasn't anyone been back? Well. Why don't you go back to a barren lifeless rock that just happens to orbit our planet? Do you have a few hundred million? Oh wait, you want to get there safely, make that a few billion.

[Blitzen]

Why hasn't anyone been back? Well. Why don't you go back to a barren lifeless rock that just happens to orbit our planet? Do you have a few hundred million? Oh wait, you want to get there safely, make that a few billion.

I think we all know that isnt the reason.

[nightkhaos]

I think we all know that isnt the reason.

Please. Enlighten us all then. What is the reason?

[Disturbedguy]

Why hasn't anyone been back? Well. Why don't you go back to a barren lifeless rock that just happens to orbit our planet? Do you have a few hundred million? Oh wait, you want to get there safely, make that a few billion.

The money isn't part of it, don't such utter rubbish.

How many millions have they spent of both the spaceships and mars lander's/ rovers whatever they want to call them over the past few years alone? Let alone 30 years.
They have had the money, they have just spent it on other things, spaceships that explode before making it out of earths atmospher, mars landers/ rovers and whatever else, other than actually going and landing on the moon.

As for going back to a barron rock, you mean like they are with Mars? Sending landers and all sorts to it.

[pollaxe]

Really? I'd have thought budgets were at the heart of why we haven't been back. It was certainly why the program was cut back in the first place and funds were put to other projects.

[Disturbedguy]

If budgets were the heart of why we haven't been back.

Then how can they justify spending the money they have on sending landers/ rovers to Mars?

Surely these are costing just as much, if not more?

[Bazzlad]

I love conspiracy theories/theorists.

They'll argue and argue, until you hit them with solid fact - then they'll argue some more.

It's always been a case of a little knowledge, not a lot. Which ends up as more harm than good.

Every time I've argued with one of these people they have this technique. It's rather irritating. It's called the machine gun:

Them: 9-11 Was done by Bush lolz!111!!
Me: Explain why you think that
Them: The plain that flew into the pentagon was a miss-isle! Why was there a whole in the building without wings? And why was there no plain parts?! lolz!
Me: See the collapsed wall in this picture? That's where the plane hit.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...agon-3days.jpg
The small hole you point out was made by the landing gear.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...t77-debris.jpg
The wings broke off the plane due to it being a reinforced concrete building.
Here are some plane parts.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...5windows-l.jpg

Them: That proves nothing... what about x


-------------------------

And that's how the conversation goes. For about 5 hours. Unless you have intricate knowledge on every aspect single of 9-11 you will lose. Because the second they say something you can't counter you get the famous: "aaaaaaaaah, now you see!" crap.

That said, Maddox said it best:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

For some good moon landing debunking, read this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[Grey M@a]

I love conspiracy theories/theorists.

They'll argue and argue, until you hit them with solid fact - then they'll argue some more.

It's always been a case of a little knowledge, not a lot. Which ends up as more harm than good.

Every time I've argued with one of these people they have this technique. It's rather irritating. It's called the machine gun:

Them: 9-11 Was done by Bush lolz!111!!
Me: Explain why you think that
Them: The plain that flew into the pentagon was a miss-isle! Why was there a whole in the building without wings? And why was there no plain parts?! lolz!
Me: See the collapsed wall in this picture? That's where the plane hit.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...agon-3days.jpg
The small hole you point out was made by the landing gear.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...t77-debris.jpg
The wings broke off the plane due to it being a reinforced concrete building.
Here are some plane parts.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...5windows-l.jpg

Them: That proves nothing... what about x


-------------------------

And that's how the conversation goes. For about 5 hours. Unless you have intricate knowledge on every aspect single of 9-11 you will lose. Because the second they say something you can't counter you get the famous: "aaaaaaaaah, now you see!" crap.

That said, Maddox said it best:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

For some good moon landing debunking, read this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

This is why I am so into following conspiracy theories as they offer some enjoyment/amusement to the reader and their sheer lack of looking at all the evidence instead of just picking what they want and discarding the rest that will discredit any thin bit of string their theory was hanging by in the future.

[pollaxe]

I'll attempt a more detailed answer when I can but the Shuttle program was attractive because it featured re-usable parts so it was much cheaper than Saturn Vs and LEMs etc.

[ajones]

I'd suggest the space race was paid for in a purely political manner. Once the Russians had been beaten to the moon and gave up with that, it was merely a matter of time before the US/Western public got bored of the whole business. Funding dried up and NASA have been fighting for budgets ever since. Has NASA been moved under the US Defense budget yet?

Other than that, I'd love NASA to release pictures of the landing sites and start up a whole new conversation as to whether the pictures are doctored; they've nothing to lose!

[Disturbedguy]

I love conspiracy theories/theorists.

They'll argue and argue, until you hit them with solid fact - then they'll argue some more.

It's always been a case of a little knowledge, not a lot. Which ends up as more harm than good.

Every time I've argued with one of these people they have this technique. It's rather irritating. It's called the machine gun:

Them: 9-11 Was done by Bush lolz!111!!
Me: Explain why you think that
Them: The plain that flew into the pentagon was a miss-isle! Why was there a whole in the building without wings? And why was there no plain parts?! lolz!
Me: See the collapsed wall in this picture? That's where the plane hit.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...agon-3days.jpg
The small hole you point out was made by the landing gear.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...t77-debris.jpg
The wings broke off the plane due to it being a reinforced concrete building.
Here are some plane parts.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...5windows-l.jpg

Them: That proves nothing... what about x


-------------------------

And that's how the conversation goes. For about 5 hours. Unless you have intricate knowledge on every aspect single of 9-11 you will lose. Because the second they say something you can't counter you get the famous: "aaaaaaaaah, now you see!" crap.

That said, Maddox said it best:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

For some good moon landing debunking, read this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

I have my own views on the hole 9/11 saga, which I wont air here as they aren't part of this actual discussion. I would like to say the pictures make me think otherwise, but at the moment they don't.

Never the less, always good to find someone who can argue his or her own corner without abusive language and some for of evidence.