Blackman
why hasn't NASA been able to send a man to the moon since the 1970s?
'Hasn't been able' and 'Hasn't' are two different things. They could have, but lack of political will, public interest, and tangible benefit resulted in no money being allocated to it; in fact, I think the last three missions, 18, 19 ad 20, were cancelled as finding was reduced.
The whole space program seems to have taken several steps back in the last 30 years,
See above; no steps back per se, but although the computers now are incomparable to the jumped-up pocket calulators they flew Apollo, lack of consistent incremental development means that whilst mobile phones look incomparable to the first ones made, Orion is basically Apollo on steroids.
The dumb capsule re-entry mode is also very safe. The Shuttle has a 1% fail rate and NASA know another total loss would put back any pans they had. Apollo on steroids fufills the mission requirements with less risk and cost than something inniovative or bleeding edge.
looking over some of these moon landing conspiracy sites raised some great questions about the original one. What do you think?
I think you should spend time going over the moonlanding conspiracy de-bunking sites, that's what I think.
Warlock
Who knows? I do.
I bet not one skeptic of the moonlandings can go through the rebuffing of the conspiracists that are freely and easily available on line and show us where those rebutals of conspiracist nonsense are wrong.
darth frosty
Without being mean your post shows exactly how rigourous most people's research is
and who took all of the pictures of them landing and taking off from the moon?
First, please find me footage of a moon landing, as in the Lunar Module alighting on the surface of the moon taken FROM the moon. There is none. You know so little about it you make false claims out ofignorance rather than intenion to decieve.
Second, have you heard of things called remote controls and tripods? These devices would amazingly allow remote videoing of Lunar Module departures.
Now, why not actually read one of thew websites that rebuff the conspiracist nonsense? Surely it is embaressing making comments you wouldn't make had you spent five minutes checking your facts?
needproof
Anybody familiar with the Van Alan radiation belt?
Yes, are you familiar with Wikipedia? Check the references supporting the rebuff of the conspiracist position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy#Ionizing_radiation_and_heat
The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the metal hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray.[57] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years
Qcmbr
and half the reason is that it winds up purists like AlanF
'Purist?' Is this a new sciencephobic fantasists way of saying 'realist' or 'educated'?
PS, winding up blowhard fantasists is fun for me, don'tchakno? If the standard of cynicism displayed in your humour towards the evidence of the moon landings was applied to the evidence of Mormonism you would reject your religion. How's that for a punchline?
Don't worry, just winding you up
brinjen
You mean you never really looked for a convincing explanation... it took me five minutes, and I am sure there is nothing wrong with you that would stop you doing the same if you tried.
~
I cannot undersand how people believe rubbish like this.
The deceptively reasonable nature of the arguements, the careful selection of data and exclusion of other data, the demonstrable errors in claimed facts, the misrepresentation of data, the use of out-of-context quotes... the little thrill knowing you know something millions don't.
... that list of problems with and attractions of JW beliefs can be applied to most Conspiracy theories.
I cannot imagine how people here who figured out they were being deceived by a cult cannot see that Conspiracies like this are just more deception.
The moon-landing conspiracy and the 9/11 conspiracy theories both assume tens of thousands of people can keep a secret, that none would not be greedy or incautious enough to break the silence such conspiraciess require, that the planning of such massive conspiracies can be conducted flawlessly.
You may as well believe the universe flew out of my arse if you are that credulous. Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes things that are laughable should be laughed at even if hurts your ickle feelings; by all means, show what I've asked to be shown and prove me wrong.
Any of you conspiracy folk want to buy a fragment of the true cross?
