-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Moon landing debate - why?
- Thread starter RaiderJ
- Start date
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
They're gullible and/or they just believe what they want to believe regardless of how compelling the evidence that they're wrong.
GoatMonkey
Golden Member
People think it was faked to show our technological superiority to Russia.
NuclearNed
Raconteur
We live in a cynical age. In particular, people have lost faith in the government.
manowar821
Diamond Member
Goatmonkey is right, part of it is believed to be because the USA had to one up the USSR.
On top of all the reasons TO fake the moon landing, the reason WHY it is believed to have been faked is because of the radiation belt, which is impassable with our modern spacecraft, much less paper thin foil capsules used during the space race.
There was one mission, where in the crew flew out to nearly the beginning of the belt. The then present radiation allowed them to see through their eyelids, through the craft's hull, and on into space. The X-rays were that strong, not even INSIDE the belt.
There are scientists working for NASA who have said we "don't have the technology currently to go to the moon". In this century. This has been said as an excuse as to why we haven't been back, or why we haven't sent manned missions to other planets. That, and financial reasons, obviously.
I'm not sure either way, personally.
EDIT: Also, in after a bunch of pricks.
On top of all the reasons TO fake the moon landing, the reason WHY it is believed to have been faked is because of the radiation belt, which is impassable with our modern spacecraft, much less paper thin foil capsules used during the space race.
There was one mission, where in the crew flew out to nearly the beginning of the belt. The then present radiation allowed them to see through their eyelids, through the craft's hull, and on into space. The X-rays were that strong, not even INSIDE the belt.
There are scientists working for NASA who have said we "don't have the technology currently to go to the moon". In this century. This has been said as an excuse as to why we haven't been back, or why we haven't sent manned missions to other planets. That, and financial reasons, obviously.
I'm not sure either way, personally.
EDIT: Also, in after a bunch of pricks.
Modelworks
Lifer
It was real, as real as anything can be.
People always are looking for a conspiracy.
Everything from JFK was killed by the CIA, to the war in Iraq is being run by the us government and we are actively giving munitions to the other side so we can keep the war running after we blew up the twin towers so we could invade Iraq.
Loved that one.
I like the response I watched on the history channel from one of the engineers involved with the project.
something like "We haven't been back to the moon because there is no need, we have the rocks, we know what the surface looks like, other than possible mining in the future, theres just nothing there worth the effort"
I'm inclined to agree.
Places like mars, jupiter are far more interesting.
Also that same guy showed the camera they used on the moon.
13fps interlaced .
People always are looking for a conspiracy.
Everything from JFK was killed by the CIA, to the war in Iraq is being run by the us government and we are actively giving munitions to the other side so we can keep the war running after we blew up the twin towers so we could invade Iraq.
Loved that one.
I like the response I watched on the history channel from one of the engineers involved with the project.
something like "We haven't been back to the moon because there is no need, we have the rocks, we know what the surface looks like, other than possible mining in the future, theres just nothing there worth the effort"
I'm inclined to agree.
Places like mars, jupiter are far more interesting.
Also that same guy showed the camera they used on the moon.
13fps interlaced .
mugs
Lifer
That sounds like something out of a science fiction story^H^H^H^H^H cartoon. Our eyes see light. X-rays are not in the visible spectrum. How are X-rays going to allow the visible spectrum to pass through a spacecraft and a human eyelid? The X-rays themselves can pass through, but that won't allow you to see through things. Think about how an X-ray machine works. It doesn't make your body transparent. The X-rays pass through and hit a reactive substance much like a camera works. (Edit: I am not a scientist, just a thinker)
This isn't secret information or anything. It is openly admitted that we can't do a moon mission now. We don't have a lunar lander. The space shuttle can't land on the moon and take off again. 😉
daniel1113
Diamond Member
imported_LoKe
Lifer
Apollo 11
Apollo 12
Apollo 14
Apollo 15
Apollo 16
Apollo 17
EDIT: Unless you mean in this century alone. I'm not buff on this subject, so I don't see why we couldn't go back if we have already been there.
Vic
Elite Member
Ignorance leads to fear which leads to submission.
From the evolutionary standpoint, most (if not all) of the human race still exists somewhere between the animal and primitive mentalities. And the government god is heap big medicine -- we are to be very afraid, worship and sacrifice accordingly. This is why CT'ers get very indignant when you don't buy off on their theories. You're blaspheming their god.
Now, a lot of CT'ers naturally won't like this analogy, but that's because they're in denial and they've mistaken cynicism and fear for skepticism, which are very different things.
Consider the one thing that the CT's all have in common: that government is all-powerful. This is crucial to all of them. So a lone crazed gunman couldn't have killed JFK, government is too powerful to allow that, so government must have done it. Religious fanatics couldn't have brought down the WTC's, government is too powerful to allow that, so government must have done it. UFO's have been seen by some, but the government denies it, therefore government must know all about it and even have the aliens and their technology locked away somewhere.
The OP is right though that the moon landings don't fit this particular mold, however what we have here is the simulataneous elevation of government to god status with the denigration of humanity. The submissive person is humans and therefore humans, of course, could never go to the moon. But gubment is somehow not human but a god and therefore powerful enough to have faked it.
Divinity is of course a main underlying principle behind government historically. The pharaohs were gods, as were the Roman emperors. Following that, as Judeo-Christianity didn't allow for humans to be deified, the Pope was the vicar of Christ on earth (or literally the human replacement of God) while the Europeans kings had the divine right to rule bestowed to them directly by God. The liberal philosophies of the Enlightenment, and the democracies of the 20th century, took away this divinity of government, and angry worshippers have been trying to get it back ever since.
The principle behind it though, is the same reason that the submissive dog allows the dominant dog to bite his neck and pin him down on his back. The submissive dog doesn't know why the dominant dog is dominant, but he knows that the dominant dog makes him fear, therefore he submits. From the evoluntionary standpoint, this saves the submissive dog's life and improves his chances of reproduction.
From the evolutionary standpoint, most (if not all) of the human race still exists somewhere between the animal and primitive mentalities. And the government god is heap big medicine -- we are to be very afraid, worship and sacrifice accordingly. This is why CT'ers get very indignant when you don't buy off on their theories. You're blaspheming their god.
Now, a lot of CT'ers naturally won't like this analogy, but that's because they're in denial and they've mistaken cynicism and fear for skepticism, which are very different things.
Consider the one thing that the CT's all have in common: that government is all-powerful. This is crucial to all of them. So a lone crazed gunman couldn't have killed JFK, government is too powerful to allow that, so government must have done it. Religious fanatics couldn't have brought down the WTC's, government is too powerful to allow that, so government must have done it. UFO's have been seen by some, but the government denies it, therefore government must know all about it and even have the aliens and their technology locked away somewhere.
The OP is right though that the moon landings don't fit this particular mold, however what we have here is the simulataneous elevation of government to god status with the denigration of humanity. The submissive person is humans and therefore humans, of course, could never go to the moon. But gubment is somehow not human but a god and therefore powerful enough to have faked it.
Divinity is of course a main underlying principle behind government historically. The pharaohs were gods, as were the Roman emperors. Following that, as Judeo-Christianity didn't allow for humans to be deified, the Pope was the vicar of Christ on earth (or literally the human replacement of God) while the Europeans kings had the divine right to rule bestowed to them directly by God. The liberal philosophies of the Enlightenment, and the democracies of the 20th century, took away this divinity of government, and angry worshippers have been trying to get it back ever since.
The principle behind it though, is the same reason that the submissive dog allows the dominant dog to bite his neck and pin him down on his back. The submissive dog doesn't know why the dominant dog is dominant, but he knows that the dominant dog makes him fear, therefore he submits. From the evoluntionary standpoint, this saves the submissive dog's life and improves his chances of reproduction.
FoBoT
No Lifer
read this
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2..._public_policy_approa/
and if you can find the studies referenced, maybe that would help explain it
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2..._public_policy_approa/
and if you can find the studies referenced, maybe that would help explain it
Born2bwire
Diamond Member
I really don't understand the propagation of the myth that we can't travel through the radiation belt. But your conviction that the crew could see through eyelids, hull and into space due to X-rays is a good indication on why this nonsense gets propagated.
manowar821
Diamond Member
This century alone... What else could I mean?
uallas5
Golden Member
Agent K: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
imported_LoKe
Lifer
I don't know anything about space travel so I don't see why we couldn't go back if we claimed we did in the past. Educate me please.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
