After a recent debate on Youtube with some people, i've decided to try this topic out here.

in 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon. There's a lot of skepticism floating around about whether the US staged it to beat the USSR in the space race, or if it actually happened. Thats the general debate, theres a lot more detail to it, but i'm too lazy to write it down and my post would take up at least 3 pages.

DISCUSS

no .

It happened
/thread

For the sake of it:

How did the flag appear to be fluttering in the wind?

Magic. /thread

The flag was obviously waving because of the wind... pssht your all liek teh stoopidist peepole evr.

Quote from bonk

For the sake of it:

How did the flag appear to be fluttering in the wind?

It wasn't fluttering, it was a starched flag, which kept it in a solid "waving" position. Apparently.
I had a debate with some guys about this in school a few years ago.

Neil was the first man on the moon, right?
So, how is there a picture of him leaving the ship, taking the first step on the moon?

Sattelite?
There's a picture of all three of them on the moon. How was it taken, if there was only three?


I'll go with which ever has the most facts towards/against, usually.
But, I've never believed this to be true. There just isn't enough proof, IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related

What do you think?

I have my doubts.

Quote from the_hero

It wasn't fluttering, it was a starched flag, which kept it in a solid "waving" position. Apparently.
I had a debate with some guys about this in school a few years ago.

Neil was the first man on the moon, right?
So, how is there a picture of him leaving the ship, taking the first step on the moon?
Actually, that footage wasn't the firt step on the moon, they jsut wanted it to be remembered as such. They set up a tripod, rehearsed it, and performed it.
Sattelite?
There's a picture of all three of them on the moon. How was it taken, if there was only three?
HAHAHHAAHHA.
This is the worst argument I've ever seen.

Have you ever heard of a tripod?

I'll go with which ever has the most facts towards/against, usually.
But, I've never believed this to be true. There just isn't enough proof, IMHO.

People who think the moon landing was a hoax are just stubbern idiots who are butthurt that they don't understand that it is actually possible to happen.


And about that video:

Firstly, many people have attempted to recreate the "moonwalk" footage, and none have been sucessful. Secondly, all the "wire reflection" thing proves is the existance of lense flare.

I'd love to see the look on these idiots faces once someone takes them on a trip to the moon in about 30 years, now that commercial space travel is becoming a reality.


Oh, and please continue this debate, it's quite a good subject.

Quote from Ash

People who think the moon landing was a hoax are just stubbern idiots who are butthurt that they don't understand that it is actually possible to happen.

Agree'd

We had a "debate" in school about this, and the amount of people who were saying

"WELL IF UR SO SMART. THAN HOW COME THEY DONT GO BACK TO THE MOOOOOOON???"

Argh, I can't even argue with people like that.

just like 9/11 conspiracies, jfk, anything else, i've never heard ANY compelling evidence that would independently lead me to doubt the official story of the moon landing. for all the "but look at THIS group of pixels!!!" and "well just use your common sense... how could ____" there's never any information that can be distinctly shown to contradict any part of the assumed story.

Obviously fake.

THE MOON IS A LIE... SO IS THE CAKE!

Quote from Ash

People who think the moon landing was a hoax are just stubbern idiots who are butthurt that they don't understand that it is actually possible to happen.

People who say that ANYONE who thinks the moon landing was a hoax are just stubbern idiots, are stubbern idiots. How can you possibly say that "it happened," without viable evidence, you can't, otherwise there would have never been any debate in the first place. ALSO:

"they don't understand that it is actually possible to happen," well on the same premise, you have to understand that it is actually possible for 9/11 to have been a hoax, surely? And therefore open the idea with open arms?
No?
Cunt.

whether or not it was a hoax is of no importance to me