And...of course...I would try to determine if I´m dreaming, which I think would be the most probable alternative if I experienced the quoted thing.

Followed in falling order of probability by me being insane and hallucinating and then followed by nothing and then by nothing and then...interesting...maybe by nothing...

Fringe theory: you're dreaming right now. Prove otherwise.

I hope for your sake I´m not dreaming. If I´m dreaming, it would lead to that your quoted post is dreamed up by me and you hadn´t written it. How do you feel about that?

Being a figment of your imagination, I'm cool with that, of course.

humans =/= robots

although i think its laughable that the president now wants to sent humans to mars. the US and every other nation on earth has failed to send a human >400 miles from earth since 1972 (or ever if you're in my camp) and now obama wants to send someone a zillion miles away.

enjoy.

simple question with respect: how many years will have to pass before you do doubt the 1969-72 "landings" ? ? do you think in 2069 when it has been 100 years the avg person will still buy this if we're still in low earth orbit? honest answers only, please leave smartarse criticism behind.

thanks.

Surely there's some chance the Mars landings were faked also? (Maybe the bodged British effort was a genuine attempt, and that's why it went wrong...)

Yes, in 2069 I would still believe it, unless here's reason to believe that are good reasons to go back yet we still haven't. See, that's the thing you seem continually to miss: we went in the 60s and 70s to prove that we could, basically. Now that we have, we need a good reason to spend the enormous amount of money it would take to go back. We already know what's there, pretty much, many of the things we could do there are just as easily and far more cheaply done from orbit, and there's no reason to believe that any mining or such could be commercially viable. Until one of those things changes, I don't infer anything from our failure to do it again.

Tomorrow I'll post the ultimate conspiracy moon landing you ever read. The imagination of it is amazing.

Yea, just think about it. What is government trying to plant into our heads?

this is awesome.

The basic idea is that the apollo missions did happen, but the photos were faked because the astronauts found a ton of ufo stuff on the moon. Not surprisingly, much of this is on the Dark Side of the Moon.

[special note] There are photos that are apparently taken by Neil Armstrong.

and the icing on the cake.

Failed? It's not like we've really been trying so hard recently.

And why didn't you respond to my past post? Don't you see how ridiculous and lacking logic your line of reasoning here is?

"to prove that we could" - so the usa was able to achieve manned moon landings (6) before russia, even though russia had beat the us in virtually every other part of the space race? and russia still never has gotten to the moon btw. and this seems ok/normal to you? also - why go 7 times if after the 1st mission would've determined what you are concluding? heck, at least the 2nd or 3rd would've---but 7?!?? and then to abruptly cancel the entire Apollo program with 3 missions still being planned? this seems normal to you?

also your logic is flawed considering the usa has had plans and canceled plans to return to the moon. if it were a complete, unnecessary waste why even plan to return?

your logic is also flawed when you use the money argument. the usa spends trillions more than it has anyway - to say that they don't have the money for anything is laughable. they have an endless bankroll brah.

(also - in 2069 if man has never left low-earth orbit "again" will you still believe that they did in 1969?)

"from orbit?" please stop comparing 400 miles to 240,000 miles to 34,000,000 miles. these are not fair comparisons to make. if you truly believe they are, ship me $240k on stars and i'll ship you $400 back. after all, they are basically the same thing ;-)


this obv doesn't warrant a serious reply brah considering using a nuke causes damage / destruction / kills people. give me a better comparison plz.

replied above.

i believe that truly believing 100% either way is illogical brother - it could go either way but imo it didn't happen. obv we disagree hence this discussion.

A coin flip can go either way.
The moon landing happened and there is tons of evidence that you choose to ignore.

can we also create an official penis thread?
i mean if this threads purpose is to not derail the rest of the forum..

Ok, so you're saying that we haven't set off another nuke since then because there are negatives to doing so that out-weigh the positives. And this is sensible. That we haven't used a nuke since the 1940s isn't a good enough reason to believe that we didn't actually use any in the 1940s.

Similarly, we haven't returned to the moon since then because there are negatives to doing so that out-weigh the positives. That we haven't returned isn't a good enough reason to believe that we didn't actually go in 1969.

It really is the same idea. We are told that this event happened a long time ago, but hasn't happened since. The lack of repeating this event isn't evidence that it never took place to begin with.

i'm not ignoring anything. i am questioning everything. you seem to be believing things blindly. you'd have been a good member of the Flat Earth club w/ that attitude.

i agree that lack of returning is not "proof" that we didn't go - its just part of the bigger picture imo.

however your argument has flaws too - you are saying that we went and decided that the costs/negatives out weighed the positives. i simply wonder why then did we go, and then go again, and again, and again... and then abruptly cancel 3 missions? it really took 7 trips to determine that it was not worth it?

furthermore - lets say i accept that we went and went again times 7 and then quit because, like you say, the negatives outweigh the positives.

then why ever plan on returning? the US has twice now planned to return to the moon - only to cancel their plans. most recently they hoped to return by 2025. laughable to me that they hoped to return in 20 years after initially getting there in 8 w/ 60s technology. given that in 2005 they had 2 distinct advantages (1- already been there, would have a template to work from 2- better technology in 2005 means <8 years to develop) it seems weird to me that more people don't question this when looking at it this way.

We established a program to land on the moon to prove that we could. Given that it worked, we spent the incremental whatever it was to go a few more times, but eventually decided it wasn't worth it any more.

Now it would cost orders of magnitude more to go, in part because our attitudes about risking the lives of astronauts have changed so we'd insist on it being ridiculously over-engineered, and there's still not a lot we would want to do that can't be done about as well in a much easier way.

And I don't see any problem believing that we beat the Russians getting there. Their technology was on a par, perhaps overall superior in some ways, but not so superior that it is impossible to believe — and perhaps the biggest reason I believe it is that afaik they never, ever tried to debunk it. The USSR had an enormous interest in showing that we didn't get there, and there was never any serious suggestion to that effect. They had their program; they knew what was possible... and they believed it. I consider that strong evidence.


Politics, I suspect. Don't know. I certainly have no difficulty imagining politicians proposing grand plans, and the bureaucrats and scientists who would benefit from implementing those plans going along with it. I also have no problem believing that the money wasn't there, given what I suspect was the missions' proponents failure to demonstrate much benefit that would come therefrom.


I suspect, and rather hope, that you don't actually believe this.

I we have an endless bankroll I wonder why we are not spending more of it on things that would get incumbent politicians reelected, like free housing and health care for everyone. that's a ridiculous position of course, but so is yours. Marginal dollars matter; marginal hundreds of billions matter quite a bit.


Yes.

If there is a great reason for doing it, and sufficient wealth that it would seem reasonable, and we don't, then perhaps I'll have my doubts, but there would have to be more evidence than just that.


Strangely enough, low gravity is pretty much the same 400 miles up, 240,000 miles up, and 34,000,000 miles up. So is freedom from atmospheric influence on instruments. (think Hubble telescope — would it really be so much better if it were on the moon?) There aren't any minerals to mine in orbit, but mining the moon is millennia from being economical.

For most realistic purposes, they are quite comparable.


You continue, also, to ignore the way the world of technology has changed since the sixties. Then, to go to the moon and expect to get anything back or even learn much about it pretty much required that we send humans. Now, computer technology has advanced sufficiently far (many billion-fold, I think) that it's perfectly reasonable to send unmanned probes to do many of our research and technological tasks. Not all, perhaps, but it changes the cost/benefit curve dramatically. Couple that with the cultural changes that have made even a single death a big deal, and what you get is the cessation of manned programs to the moon. If we decided we needed to go back, I suspect we would send robots, not people, so a failure to send people wouldn't imply anything about whether we'd done it in the past.

pen15 is Zeno's second account.

Ahhhhhhhhh, now it all makes sense.

good reply - very well thought out. i like you, even though i don't see eye to eye with you. i certainly can see most if not all of the points you make. i simply believe it could've and did go another way. i think its hard to say that this happened w/ 110% certainty.

I give to you the greatest fringe theory ever made.



Do not open at work: http://www.timecube.com/

I dunno, hollow earth with people inside is pretty good

Bump.

Maybe we could have some mindblowing discussions here again.

Is Elvis still alive? Did man land on moon? How about the JFK conspiracy? Some new topic to discuss? How about something really accepted where you want to put a question mark? Not so serious suggestions would also be fun. Who knows, maybe it is the one per cent /one promill that is fit for evolution? You know, "It all started at the 2+2 SMP forum"

i think that website has activated my schizophrenia