[Comrade Ogilvy]

I have posted this poll out of sheer curiosity.
It's occured to me that there are MANY sources on the www that dispute the american moon landings and the evidence backing up their arguments is terribly vivid.
I am a logical person, and would in all sincerity love to be able to KNOW with all CERTAINTY that these 'Moon Hoax' ideas aren't true.

But weighing up the evidence, it is really a 50/50 situation for me now.

Although I can guess what the general response will be regarding this question, I would ask you to please consider your vote carefully, even though it may seem blatantly obvious to some of you....but I ask you this, why has it taken over 30 years for NASA to even contemplate going back to the moon? Whats the hold up? The technology has improved enormously since then, and please, say nothing of the costs, because back then the entire Apollo program only cost $20 billion in adjusted dollars, and yet, the invasion of Iraq has to this day passed the $100 billion mark.

[Vivisekt]

I've never seen any evidence that would actually suggest that these were a hoax. Most of the 'evidence' that these nutballs want to bring forward simply shows a lack of understanding about the climate of the moon.

...that and the fact that we regularly bounce lasers off of mirrors left on the moon kind of smash these idiot conspiracy theories.

but I ask you this, why has it taken over 30 years for NASA to even contemplate going back to the moon? Whats the hold up?

Because nobody cares - the funding isn't there, the Soviet Union (competition) fell apart, and the general public would rather pick their noses and blow up Iraq than explore space.

[Attila The Nun]

...Of course not. It's stupid to say otherwise.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

[quote]Because nobody cares - the funding isn't there, the Soviet Union (competition) fell apart, and the general public would rather pick their noses and blow up Iraq than explore space.[/quote]

I hope what your saying isn't true, but it could be, you never know....how sad....

[Vivisekt]

I hope what your saying isn't true, but it could be, you never know....how sad....

It is true, it is sad, and it makes me embarassed to be alive and a part of humanity. Embarassed and disgusted.

[Liberal]

No, I dont think that they were hoax.
There are just too many evidence to support the landing.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I really don't care!

I heard a funny story though about some guy investigating. Apparently he got suspicious about the lack of stars in the moon landing video. He actually sought out all the "moon-landers", came to their house with a Bible and tried to get them to swear that they really did land on the moon. He was thrown out of all their houses and Buzz Aldrin punched him in the face.

Here is the video link:

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/

[Der Freiheitsucher]

This thread is gone from my forum.

[MB.]

Simply put, no. It was not a hoax.

All the so-called evidence shit is utterly innacurate and simply wrong, scientifically speaking.

[Pongetti]

Indeed. There is a page I read a while back countering all the claims of that TV special, I think on Fox, a while back that gave all the evidence to suggest it was a hoax. Many of them didn't even need specific responses about the technology used or anything, they were just common sense. Example: One argument was that in some cases objects appeared as though they were in front of the camera's crosshairs. Well what the hell did you think they did? Carry a big card-board crosshair on to the set? Why would it being fake cause this to happen?

Idiots.

[Ixa]

It was not a hoax; it actually happened. It was a propaganda stunt.

[Todd D.]

I believe that only someone like Damieen would actually say that it is a hoax, and invariably tied to some final phase bullshit or something like that.

[naked_turk]

He was thrown out of all their houses and Buzz Aldrin punched him in the face.

He deserved it

I would be quite insulted if someone did that to me.

[Attila The Nun]

It was not a hoax; it actually happened. It was a propaganda stunt.

The great space war, my freind. Russia was in on it too. And so is China now (And I think it's ridiculous to try and raise their own space station)

[Siberian Fox]

The moon landings can't have been fake for the reason that if the Americans hadn't really sent a spaceship to the moon the Russians would have told the world.

As to future space exploration, IMHO it is a huge waste of money to be sending spaceships to mars whilst there are still people on earth without even clean water.

[Reddy Peoples]

I personally don't believe that the technology necessary to land a man on the moon was there for the first landing. I think the later ones were real, but that the first was total bullshit. We couldn't broadcast from coast to coast, but we could broadcast from the moon?

[Siberian Fox]

We couldn't broadcast from coast to coast, but we could broadcast from the moon?

What is unusaual about that? One needs a telecomunications satellite to broadcast 1,000 of miles. From space one doens't need to worry about the curvature of the earth getting in the way.

[Reddy Peoples]

That's nothing compared to the other inconcievabilities. How could film (which is designed to chemically react to light in earth's atmosphere) exist which was designed to reeact with the light on the moon at temperatures unseen on earth?!?! How could suits so thin protect an astronaught from the radiation of space? How could guys with chest mounted box cameras take such good pictures? Why couldn't they jump higher on the moon- which has less gravity? Why did they sound like they were just on a shitty phone connection?

[Yeddi]

How could film (which is designed to chemically react to light in earth's atmosphere) exist which was designed to reeact with the light on the moon at temperatures unseen on earth?!?!

The light is the same light.

How could suits so thin protect an astronaught from the radiation of space?

Don't know anything bout the radiation of space, but did you ever think that perhaps they didn't protect them? Radiation does not equal death.

How could guys with chest mounted box cameras take such good pictures?

Did you really think that NASA was going to spend millions of dollars to send people to the moon and not give the guys lessons on how to get the best pictures? And how many photos have been released from the moon landings, i'm usre they didn't release all of them, there were probably many many terrible shots that you never see.

Why couldn't they jump higher on the moon- which has less gravity?

They were weighed down so they didn't float away.

Why did they sound like they were just on a shitty phone connection?

Because they probably were.

[Cap]

How could people all over the world observe the landing site on the moon from Earth with telescopes if no one was there? They landed on the light side, not the dark side of the moon, no?


Cap