Did human beings really land on the moon?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Was the moon landing real?

  • Yes. The moon landing really happened, and I like popcorn shrimp.

    Votes: 16 48.5%
  • No. It was shot on a sound stage in Nevada, but I like popcorn shrimp.

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Yes. The moon landing really happened, but I don't like popcorn shrimp.

    Votes: 10 30.3%
  • No. It was shot on a sound stage in Nevada, and I don't like popcorn shrimp.

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • Total voters
    33
May I ask what the moon landing has to do with popcorn shrimp?

img_dnd_popcorn.jpg
 
I dont think they did. How would they have enough fuel? A plane cant even fly around the world without needing a shit load of fuel. Computers were the size of shopping malls but they could land on the moon? Why havent they landed on the moon recently? If they can land on the moon why cant they go to the bottom of the ocean?
 
For starters, they didn't use jet fuel (for airplanes). They used rocket fuel and lots of it. They only need enough, though, to escape Earth's gravity and later the Moon's, and a little for steering. Most of the Apollo rocket was used to hold fuel, and it expended it shortly after leaving the planet's atmosphere.

Second, the computers they used at the time were much smaller than the first computers made. This was 1969, not 1945.

Third, they don't need to go to the moon anymore. The reason they did in the first place was to beat the Soviets in the space race. They made a few more trips, and ultimately discovered a veritable cornucopia of nothing.

Fourth, why do they need to go to the bottom of the ocean? The water pressure down there is immense, and we haven't the technology or desire to venture down there.
 
martha said:
Oh, sure, the moon landing was real. But I think the documentary "Capricorn One" proved once and for all that the Mars landing was faked.

Exactly. And that is why OJ is innocent - he was stranded in the desert!
 
yes, they put a man on the moon

i don't like popcorn shrimp, but i love regular shrimp. the popcorn shrimp have no flavor and are just gummy :barf: esp at applebees :no:

:p
 
deep, deep sea fishing

Not George Lucas said:

Fourth, why do they need to go to the bottom of the ocean?

Perhaps the answer to this lies in the reasoning for adding the popcorn shrimp option to this poll.
 
Not George Lucas said:
They used rocket fuel and lots of it. They only need enough, though, to escape Earth's gravity and later the Moon's, and a little for steering. Most of the Apollo rocket was used to hold fuel, and it expended it shortly after leaving the planet's atmosphere.
i know all about this, cuz my dad used to work for the company that made those fuel tanks for space shuttles. :mad:

i think they landed on the moon. and i love popcorn shrimp, esp. red lobster's :drool:
 
I have no opinion on the moon landing......only the shrimp

oliveu2cm said:
i don't like popcorn shrimp, but i love regular shrimp. the popcorn shrimp have no flavor and are just gummy :barf: esp at applebees :no:

:p


I hate shrimp.
Pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich.
 
*BOOMCHAA!* said:
I hate shrimp.
Pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich.
come here and try a shrimp poboy from a place called belmont grill - it may change your mind. :D

i prefer their catfish poboys, after all, it was voted the best non-burger sandwich in memphis!
 
I would like to go to the moon and eat some popcorn shrimp. I wonder if it comes in little tubes...
 
beware third party truth

Yes... I believe that people did land on the moon. And am very fond of popcorn shrimp.


<political rant=ignore this section>
Though if you ask me, this whole "defeating the soviets" thing was utter bullshit. Lets crush idealism in order to maintain the american way of life. Because the market sure is "free" isnt it? As par to the true intent of capitalism, there sure arent any monopolies going on. Media, communications, major retail are particularly free of them. :eyeroll: I guess bi-opolies, tri-opolies, and oligopolies dont count... the whole idea of free market is that everyone is on a level playing feild and can succeed of their own accord, but thats ok... Its not like an individual could be nigh-unhumanly succeed in life on their own anyway, nor does the common every day person need businesses competing so that prices remain low and affordable, because we all have so much money to burn... so these strangleholds on the market are ok... we would have been much worse off in north america if everyone was considered equal (I will break out the historical fact to justify this statement if need be: Lenin = good. Stalin = tyrannous as a means to the end, completing Lenin's dream in a short ammount of time)... Suffice to say, im not bitter at all that people dont show any remorse for completely destroying the well-being of a nation when its none of their business, and its not like it happens all the time... In the grand scheme of things, 100 years isnt a very long time, revolutions happen overnight, and the rebuilding process takes a long time to complete. I find it ironic, however, that France enters revolution, people fight back, people celebrate at their "defeat". The US enters revolution, england fights, france cheers, the US succeeds, everyone rejoices. Russia revolts, nobody except the US cares and crushes them utterly not even giving a rats ass about the country itself only for their own well-being, not even stopping to think 'hey no more than 200 years we went through nearly the exact same thing, boy it sure was nice not having anyone coming in and crushing our revolution, maybe we should pay them the same token of respect as others paid us'. But thats ok. Not like it makes much difference. Itd be a damn shame to avoid a few more conflicts instead of continually forcing ideas upon others.

</rant>



I digress.


Needless to say, Ive encountered too many idiots out there today and I had to let it go somehow. Politics suits me fine. Hurrah for random flying off the handle. Anyways. Be offended if you like, but you were warned to ignore that section so dont get all over me trying to prove me wrong. I dont want to hear it. I dont hate america though, dont get me wrong on that either. I just despise when mistakes of the past are, a, glorified, and b, encouraged in such a way that they will likely occur again. Pacifism :up: Self-richeous 'we own you'-crap :down:
 
I don't think they did.

Actually, I'm very surprised that so many people here said yes. In a credible article I read not to long ago, a study showed that 20% of Americans never believed it happened.

I won't get into the logistics here, but I think the moon landing was bullshit.
 
While it isn't popular to discredit the grand ole' U.S. of A, I do it quite often, so why stop now. :)

I am 95% sure that human being's never landed on the moon. I've read several books on the subject, talked to several physicists and such, and I've heard convincing arguments on both sides. Nevertheless, it's not possible.

Since I don't have all the supportive facts in front of me, I can't debate this issue to the fullest extent, but I can make a few points.
1) There a number of photos that have shadows that wouldn't exist, had they been taken on the moon (due to the position of the sun).
2) Radiation in space is enough to rip through a brick wall, yet we're supposed to believe those men traveled all the way to the moon and back, in that tin-foil capsule? Come on! And to THIS DAY, non of those astronauts have any side-effects to the radiation they would have been exposed to? I know they wore spacesuits, but that piece o shit shuttle is a joke. I can't believe that people are falling for that.
3) As mentioned earlier, we stopped going to the moon in the early 1970's. Why? Because we didn't find anything there? Please!?! When has the government stopped funding a project, just because nothing was found the first 10 times? Sure, it supposedly cost a lot to go there, but that doesnt' explain why we have never been back.
4) The soviets, despite getting into space FIRST, could never....I REPEAT....NEVER....manage to get to the moon. This sounds a bit suspect, considering their space program was always so far advanced from our own. The pieces just don't fit.

Like I said, I don't have all the facts in front of me....so that's all I have time to say....

:p
 
Danospano said:

1) There a number of photos that have shadows that wouldn't exist, had they been taken on the moon (due to the position of the sun).

The moon is full of peaks and valleys, all of which effect the shadow placement. The so-called impossible shadows are a result of differences in terrain.

shadow04.jpg

This is the picture from the moon. You will see notice that the shadows seem to show a difference in light source.

shadow05.jpg

This is a recreation of the picture using terrestrial objects and one light source. You will notice that, like with the ones on the moon, the objects here cast shadows in different directions.

Also, if there were multiple light sources there would be multiple shadows. There aren't.



2) Radiation in space is enough to rip through a brick wall, yet we're supposed to believe those men traveled all the way to the moon and back, in that tin-foil capsule? Come on! And to THIS DAY, non of those astronauts have any side-effects to the radiation they would have been exposed to? I know they wore spacesuits, but that piece o shit shuttle is a joke. I can't believe that people are falling for that.

While it is true that there is immense radiation in space, it only effects things after long-term exposure, i.e. months or years. The moon trips took a few days, a week at most.


3) As mentioned earlier, we stopped going to the moon in the early 1970's. Why? Because we didn't find anything there? Please!?! When has the government stopped funding a project, just because nothing was found the first 10 times? Sure, it supposedly cost a lot to go there, but that doesnt' explain why we have never been back.

That's more of a rant about governmental spending than an argument against the moon landing, and it holds no water, as it has no real basis in fact.


4) The soviets, despite getting into space FIRST, could never....I REPEAT....NEVER....manage to get to the moon. This sounds a bit suspect, considering their space program was always so far advanced from our own. The pieces just don't fit.

Like I said, I don't have all the facts in front of me....so that's all I have time to say....

:p

The soviets had a number of drawbacks in their space program, and since it was really all about getting there first, and it turned out to be a big, lifeless rock, they just stopped trying.
 
martha said:



If you base what you believe or don't believe on what "20% of Americans" think, you're in a sad state most of the time.


:scratch:

unless that 20% is always right! :|
 
I've always been kinda skeptical about it. Seems odd that it all just kinda ended mysteriously about the time the Vietnam War ended. :scratch: Somehow it never all added up for me, that we had the technology back then to accomplish that and then abandoned the space mission. I hate to think I'm so distrustful of the U.S. government that I can actually imagine them creating a billions-of-dollars hoax as a distraction from problems at home, but I'm a pathetic sucker for conspiracy theories.:huh: It all sure looked real when I was 9, but not so real to me today.
 
Back
Top Bottom