Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 53    Average: 4.3/5]
256 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 27554
Rating: 4.3
Category: Weird
Date: 09/26/10 02:06 PM

256 Responses to Man Confronts Buzz Aldrin

  1. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    Link: Man Confronts Buzz Aldrin - The man in the thumbnail is Bart Sibrel. He confronts Aldrin over his alleged moon landing.
  2. Profile photo of krembill
    krembill Male 18-29
    1094 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    Wheres the rest??? That is so awesome!
  3. Profile photo of BigMordecai
    BigMordecai Male 18-29
    94 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm
    Heh that guy deserved it, being so insulting. However the tag line "alleged" is baffling, really? Come on we have definitely landed on the moon people. If we can build ICBMs we can build rockets.
  4. Profile photo of book21
    book21 Male 18-29
    122 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm
    yea
  5. Profile photo of p47r1ck
    p47r1ck Male 30-39
    36 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    Nice one Buzz
  6. Profile photo of 2otto2
    2otto2 Male 30-39
    117 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    Yeah, that`s the way! Go for it, Buzzzzzzz!
  7. Profile photo of Dr_Sexy
    Dr_Sexy Male 30-39
    1597 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    amendment: man gets his ass handed to him by buzz aldrin
  8. Profile photo of Llamaz
    Llamaz Male 13-17
    339 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm
    Serves that guy right.
  9. Profile photo of grahamm
    grahamm Male 18-29
    249 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm
    id be pretty pissed if some idiot came up to me and said that my proudest moment never really happened too
  10. Profile photo of Billy62
    Billy62 Male 18-29
    159 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:24 pm
    Buzz Aldrin is a badass. From Sibrel`s
    Wikipedia page:

    "Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and (based on Sibrel`s unfazed, nearly instant reaction to his camera man) did not actually injure Sibrel, and no charges were filed. Many talk show hosts aired the clip, making Sibrel the butt of jokes."
  11. Profile photo of darkangel240
    darkangel240 Female 18-29
    91 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:24 pm
    seen it
  12. Profile photo of stendec
    stendec Male 18-29
    96 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:25 pm
    Yeah!! Go Buzz
  13. Profile photo of AcemanJones
    AcemanJones Male 30-39
    81 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    Dude, this happened in 2002, almost 8 years ago.

    Time to clear the cookies in your google search engine and start posting some relevant stuff here on IAB again.
  14. Profile photo of CadillacJack
    CadillacJack Male 18-29
    105 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm
    Fluck that Motherflucker Sibrel
  15. Profile photo of a1butcher
    a1butcher Male 40-49
    4812 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm
    70 year old right hook.
    for the win!!
  16. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25408 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm
    Wow, i saw the moon landing on TV, had to be true!
  17. Profile photo of sawdusty
    sawdusty Male 40-49
    491 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:42 pm
    Wait, what. The US put a man on the moon, when?
  18. Profile photo of Dr_Fabulous
    Dr_Fabulous Male 18-29
    6 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    Sibrel is a weasel.
  19. Profile photo of Djarum
    Djarum Male 18-29
    307 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    IAB you got this off Cracked`s article today, for shame...
  20. Profile photo of cagel
    cagel Female 18-29
    275 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:47 pm
    So old. We landed on the moon. Get over it.

    Buzz Aldrin = badass pilot who went to the moon in a tiny ship and made it back = grizzled old beast who will bust your teeth only to have the judge reply "You deserved it."
  21. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:50 pm
    Nice Punch Buzz!
  22. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    "Heh that guy deserved it, being so insulting. However the tag line "alleged" is baffling, really? Come on we have definitely landed on the moon people. If we can build ICBMs we can build rockets."

    The question isn`t if America ever landed on the moon, it`s whether the first moon landings were faked so the USA could get one over on the Ruskies. Personally I keep an open mind on it.
  23. Profile photo of alexander_xx
    alexander_xx Male 18-29
    339 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:03 pm
    cmon guys, really? you still believe we landed on it, and that the guys came back without dying from radiation poisoning, then the american government `forgot` where they landed?

    propaganda and bullpoo:1 - reality:0
  24. Profile photo of Flying_cow_
    Flying_cow_ Male 30-39
    120 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    Super Space Buzz punch FTW!
  25. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:09 pm
    Took care of that problem the way Liberals wouldn`t... good man.
  26. Profile photo of MykeUK
    MykeUK Male 18-29
    364 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:11 pm
    Good one, Buzz!
  27. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm
    Serves you right moron!
  28. Profile photo of pyrrhios
    pyrrhios Male 30-39
    185 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm
    "alleged"? WTF is that poop?
  29. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    @pyrrhios

    I know my previous comment was the one I suggested. I don`t know why they wrote "alleged". First that chinese sign then this. The mods must hate me (lol!).
  30. Profile photo of todayistodie
    todayistodie Male 18-29
    80 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:24 pm
    lol @alexander xx i see you are from europe. in that case, no you have not landed on the moon. and we have stuff on mars. and thousands of sattelites that make cool stuff like the internet and your phone work.
  31. Profile photo of msieg007
    msieg007 Male 18-29
    2035 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:24 pm
    The U.S. never landed on the moon.

    Also,
    There was a second gunman on the grassy knoll.
    9/11 was an inside job.
    The world is secretly run by Freemasons.
    And Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike.
  32. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:26 pm
    People, We bounce lasers off the moon from retro-reflectors we took up there. Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

    So please, Don`t be asshats and say we didn`t land on the moon (Multiple times).
  33. Profile photo of Corpsecrank
    Corpsecrank Male 30-39
    930 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    Looks like the old man still has some bite left in him eh. I would like to know how this guy can come up to him saying he is a coward and all that when this guy has no proof that buzz never walked on the moon when he said he did. I mean was this guy even born when the lunar landing took place? Some people haha at least buzz punched him in the face for the rest of us.
  34. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2442 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    People, We bounce lasers off the moon from retro-reflectors we took up there. Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

    So please, Don`t be asshats and say we didn`t land on the moon (Multiple times).
    Took the words right out of my mouth, Crakr.

    Rock on, Buzz. That dipsh*t deserved it. Now if only the brothers, friends, and colleagues of firefighters who died on 9/11 could beat the sh*t out of every Truther out there. Let`s start with Alex Jones. Sound good?
  35. Profile photo of mervviscious
    mervviscious Male 40-49
    1794 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm
    Call him a coward.... He`s a hero...... Nice job, kick his ass...
  36. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    Well done Buzz. Some people deserve a punch in the face.
  37. Profile photo of alexander_xx
    alexander_xx Male 18-29
    339 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:32 pm
    @crakrjack: so thats a job impossible for machines? but toally possible for guys in suits that barely allow them to walk?

    and cmon man the radiation alone is proof it didnt happen, people get cancer and die from the radiation the sun gives off, through our atmosphere...

    but three guys can go in a rocket ship to the moon, protected by foil, and then come back to earth without a problem?
  38. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:33 pm
    IAB you got this off Cracked`s article today, for shame...
    IAB and Cracked are owned by the same company. You can`t steal from yourself.
  39. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2442 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    and cmon man the radiation alone is proof it didnt happen, people get cancer and die from the radiation the sun gives off, through our atmosphere...

    but three guys can go in a rocket ship to the moon, protected by foil, and then come back to earth without a problem?
    alexander_xx, you are so f*cking stupid.
  40. Profile photo of alexander_xx
    alexander_xx Male 18-29
    339 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm
    @pooptart:

    wow good point, im glad you explained why im wrong there...
  41. Profile photo of Mahaloth
    Mahaloth Male 30-39
    140 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    Good Lord, this is years old. I think it happened in 2006.

    Good for Buzz. We landed there and anyone who says different is an idiot and deserves to be punched.
  42. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm
    Oh hell, are there *still* fools who think the moon landings were faked?

    How bloody stupid are people?

    Think, for crying out loud, think!

    i) There is no evidence that the landings were faked. If you think you have any, try me. I can debunk it all, probably without having to look anything up. It`s bullpoo.

    ii) There is plenty of evidence that the moon landings were real. Not least of which is the stuff that the people put on the moon, such as the reflector array.

    iii) It would have been far harder to fake the moon landing than to actually do it. Actually, it would have been impossible to fake it. Flat out impossible without alien technology, even if you did have this perfect conspiracy of tens of thousands of people. Including people from the USSR. In 1969. In a conspiracy to make the USA look good.

    It`s deranged to believe it was faked.
  43. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:42 pm
    @alexander_xx

    Boy I`m glad I`m with CrakrJak on this one. Everything you`ve said is so much fail. We knew there was radiation in outer space so NASA designed suits with skins that could protect them from it. As for the cumbersomeness of their suits they had tools to assist in their operations. NASA even has samples of moon dust in their facilities.
  44. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:44 pm
    people get cancer and die from the radiation the sun gives off, through our atmosphere...
    They wouldn`t if they were wearing space suits.
    Or even a moderately thick T-shirt.
    Or were a bit further from the equator.

    Seriously, the moon landings were only 41 years ago. I know we`ve advanced a lot since then, but just how bad do you really think the technology was then? The principles of shielding against radiation had been known and understood for decades before that.
  45. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:46 pm
    and cmon man the radiation alone is proof it didnt happen, people get cancer and die from the radiation the sun gives off, through our atmosphere...

    but three guys can go in a rocket ship to the moon, protected by foil, and then come back to earth without a problem?

    That`s your "evidence"? Seriously?

    If you sat in a ship in the Van Allen belt for a couple of months, then walked around without a suit (somehow) on the moon`s surface then you`d have serious radiation problems.

    In reality, the additional radiation exposure on a moon trip, while very small, does exist and has caused a higher rate of some medical problems amongst astronauts.
  46. Profile photo of alexander_xx
    alexander_xx Male 18-29
    339 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    @cajun:

    so regardless of the fact almost all radioactive materials have to be stored over half a kilometer below ground or inside heavy concrete domes to prevent excess radiation leaking out, nasa can create suits that completely negate the radioactive properties of deep space on the human body?

    well that sure is interesting, how exactly do they do that?
  47. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    The question isn`t if America ever landed on the moon, it`s whether the first moon landings were faked so the USA could get one over on the Ruskies. Personally I keep an open mind on it.

    "open mind" does not mean "assigning equal probablity to all possibilities regardless of how likely or unlikely they are".

    I will go as far as to say that it is *impossible*, and I mean literally *impossible*, for the first moon landings to have been faked. I say that because I can prove it.

    Say I claimed that the USA was founded by the Roman empire using time travel devices looted from Atlantis. Hey, look at the evidence - the USA has a senate and uses an eagle as a symbol! Do you keep an open mind about that claim too? Do you think it equally likely as the USA being founded by European colonists who rebelled?
  48. Profile photo of Lobotomy
    Lobotomy Male 13-17
    495 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    "so regardless of the fact almost all radioactive materials have to be stored over half a kilometer below ground or inside heavy concrete domes to prevent excess radiation leaking out, nasa can create suits that completely negate the radioactive properties of deep space on the human body?

    well that sure is interesting, how exactly do they do that?"

    You`re talking about plutonium and stuff like that, this is sunlight. If air can repel it, I`m sure a suit could just as easily.
  49. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 3:59 pm
    so regardless of the fact almost all radioactive materials have to be stored over half a kilometer below ground or inside heavy concrete domes to prevent excess radiation leaking out, nasa can create suits that completely negate the radioactive properties of deep space on the human body?

    well that sure is interesting, how exactly do they do that?

    Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant?

    There are different types of radiation, different intensities of radiation, different durations of exposure and different degrees of accepted risk.

    I`ve handled radioactive materials. In fact, I think I have a big lump in a box somewhere in my home. I`m not dead.

    If anyone else other than alexander_xx thinks he`s making any sense, just post saying so and I`ll give chapter and verse on exactly what the radiation risks are and what NASA did to minimise them.
  50. Profile photo of tedgp
    tedgp Male 30-39
    3287 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:01 pm
    Actually angilion theres one you cant debunk.

    On one of the photo`s there are crosshairs on the image, used by nasa to jusge distance, depth etc. In this photo that was widely spread around the world. In this image, the crosshairs were on top of the image as you would expect, howver in one small part of the image, the object of the photo was over the top of the image. This could have only happened from a faked picture.

    That is one of the main reasons conspirarcy theorists say the landings were hoaxed. Lets also not mention shadows in some of the images, or the way objects and indeed the astronauts were bouncing around in low gravity, yet in future landings, EVA`s, the entire way they bounced around was different.
  51. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:04 pm
    moondust is not radioactive alexander.
    It`s not kept "miles" underground most of the samples are stored in lockers.
    All Apollo have tasted, smelled, and touched the lunar soil.
  52. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:06 pm
    You`re talking about plutonium and stuff like that, this is sunlight. If air can repel it, I`m sure a suit could just as easily.

    There are different kinds of radiation emitted from the sun as well as frequencies of EM radiation different enough to be classed differently. Some are deflected by the Earth`s magnetic field, some are stopped by air, some are stopped by pretty much anything physical (alpha particle radiation, for example, can be totally blocked by a sheet of paper).

    But your general point is right. Space is simply not as radioactive as material with artificially high concentrations of highly unstable isotopes. His argument is like saying that no-one can survive on the surface of Earth because there`s light on it light will kill you. Which it will, if you`re completely immobile for long enough in the path of a powerful laser beam you`ll die.
  53. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    shadows

    Oh let`s DO mention it. The peculiar "brightness" in these photos is caused by the albedo of the moon`s surface. You notice how the moon`s so "shiny" at night that`s why.
    As for your "image" show us.
  54. Profile photo of duffytoler
    duffytoler Male 40-49
    5196 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:11 pm
    Hit him again Buzz!
  55. Profile photo of FromPortugal
    FromPortugal Male 18-29
    304 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:11 pm
    isnt there a flag in the moon?
    arent there remains of appolo 13?
    arent they visible from telescopes?


    lol, people sure are stupid, by the way, in 1969 US scientists already knew the efects of radiation, due to atomic bombs, and already knew how to shield from radiation...
    so... all those who like trolling, wake up, and smell the air, believe, and expand your horizons...

    the earth isnt flat... lol

    oh and VERY NICE PUNCH FOR AN 80 YO MAN. i liked it. whos that jachass to say those things... nice lesson...


    dont mess with an astronaut...
  56. Profile photo of intrigid
    intrigid Male 18-29
    914 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:11 pm
    @tedgp

    Every reason you just gave is bullsh*t and easily debunked.
  57. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:13 pm
    Actually angilion theres one you cant debunk.

    No, there isn`t.

    On one of the photo`s there are crosshairs on the image, used by nasa to jusge distance, depth etc. In this photo that was widely spread around the world. In this image, the crosshairs were on top of the image as you would expect, howver in one small part of the image, the object of the photo was over the top of the image. This could have only happened from a faked picture.

    You mean that the crosshairs aren`t complete on the photo. Which can be explained in several ways, the most likely of which is that enough brightness will wash out a thin line on an image. Try it yourself - it even works on Earth. Tape a hair to a camera lens and photograph a very brightly lit white surface. The effect is greater on the moon, of course, due to the lack of atmosphere.

    I could show you pictures, but why would you believe them? Try it yourself.
  58. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    Actually wait I have an answer to your "image" assertion. The light reflecting off the surface and entering the lens can easily washout those faint imprints.
  59. Profile photo of snidwid
    snidwid Male 13-17
    117 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:15 pm
    @tedgp there is a mythbuster episode on this watch it
  60. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    Lets also not mention shadows in some of the images, or the way objects and indeed the astronauts were bouncing around in low gravity, yet in future landings, EVA`s, the entire way they bounced around was different.

    Unfortunately, you have mentioned them.

    What you`re actually saying is "Don`t respond to these vaguely stated claims that I have some evidence".

    But I am responding, because you don`t have any evidence and I`m not going to let you get away with pretending you have and telling me not to reply.

    Bring it on. Give details. I`ll debunk those too. The shadows crap is especially amusing because it`s so easy to prove all the hoax believers stuff about shadows is babble from people who know nothing. Two shadows for one object is a good one. It`s on some of the photos. Many hoax believers are so dumb they don`t realise that light can reflect off things.
  61. Profile photo of Volsunga
    Volsunga Male 18-29
    1548 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    @tedgp
    look at the original of that picture you`re referring to. It doesn`t have that error. The error was caused by image compression when scans were made of the photo. Anyone that has a basic knowledge of photography can identify the cause of that error.
  62. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:19 pm
    tedgp: I was going to explain it all here, but I`d be quicker just linking you to this, which explains the problem with the crosshairs (and shows some other examples the conspiracists conveniently ignore).
  63. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:21 pm
    -We didn`t land on the moon

    -9/11 was an inside job

    -Obama is a Muslim plant

    **Brought to you by the same Government who couldn`t keep Monica Lewisnky quiet.

    **Brought to you by the same Government that couldn`t keep Wikileaks from exposing thousands of classified documents to EVERYONE thus compromising almost every operation we have.

    -Shall I go on? See a trend here?
  64. Profile photo of jrodjarrod
    jrodjarrod Male 18-29
    77 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:21 pm
    that dude just got punched by a guythat went to the moon. he should be thankful. idiot
  65. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:21 pm
    Heh. All the conspiracy should go to an Astronautics 101 course, and then learn to STFU about the hoaxes.

    Get a life. Really.
  66. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:23 pm
    @splurbyburbl

    No it`s all made up by people who honestly have nothing better to do.
  67. Profile photo of vorpalsword
    vorpalsword Male 18-29
    1452 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:24 pm
    WAR BUZZ ALDRIN
  68. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:26 pm
    Incidentally, you can show the double shadow effect on Earth as well, if you have access to the right kind of surface. Some sandy desert areas will do it, as will some snowfields.

    So, according to the hoax believers` "logic", sandy deserts and snowfields are PROVEN to be fake!

    Seriously, this is the level that hoax believers are operating at. They`re either liars or clueless and their lines of argument lead to absurd conclusions (such as sandy deserts and snowfields not really existing on Earth).
  69. Profile photo of phoneybone
    phoneybone Male 18-29
    1744 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:32 pm
    why hasn`t this conspiracy just died yet? I mean, c`mon, it`s 2010, we`re going to the moon again soon anyway, none of this stuff matters anymore.
  70. Profile photo of raiin
    raiin Female 18-29
    293 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    Lets also not mention shadows in some of the images, or the way objects and indeed the astronauts were bouncing around in low gravity, yet in future landings, EVA`s, the entire way they bounced around was different.


    some one hasn`t seen enough mythbusters....
  71. Profile photo of zeebeedee
    zeebeedee Male 50-59
    614 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:36 pm
    Go get im Buzz!


    NASA will pick up your court costs.
  72. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:36 pm
    well, technologically speaking, it would have been way cheaper to produce a convincing fake of the moon landing than to actually do it, especially considering the primitive nature of telecommunications at the time.

    Now, hear me out. Lets say you are the President of the United States. Someone says, "we can make fake, grainy films of our moon landing using state of the art Hollywood technology, and beat those damn Ruskies for 1/10th the cost of actually landing men on the moon. Or we can launch men to the moon for billions upon billions more dollars."

    I mean, if I were the President, I would have faked it too, and stuck it right up the Russian`s a$$holes. I`d send up a few dummy probes to the surface too, just so we could mock the launches.

    Then again, rocket technology is entirely capable of placing a single manned vessel onto the moon and have it takeoff again.
  73. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    Seriously, who at the time had means to verify the truth of the moon landings, seeing as apparently the United States was the most technologically advanced civilization the world had ever known?

    Nobody. Nobody on Earth could prove they were lying. So why not fake it for much cheaper? THAT is good governance.
  74. Profile photo of bmg09
    bmg09 Male 18-29
    36 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    lol 90% of conspiracy theories are constructed and held together by people who are bored. conspiracy theories = real life trolls. go gettem buzz!
  75. Profile photo of Lobotomy
    Lobotomy Male 13-17
    495 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:43 pm
    I don`t see how it`s seems so ridiculous that the US landed on the moon. I mean, we`ve been to the moon before that just without landing on it, we were willing to spend that much money on that even though we weren`t beating the ruskies to anything. So how is it so ridiculous that we would spend some more money and do the exact same thing they did before, only actually land the pod on the moon.
  76. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:45 pm
    @goaliejerry

    Read Angillion`s post made 3:53:36 PM.
  77. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:46 pm
    well, technologically speaking, it would have been way cheaper to produce a convincing fake of the moon landing than to actually do it, especially considering the primitive nature of telecommunications at the time.

    Since you initial premise, stated above, is wrong, then your conclusions drawn from it are also wrong.

    It would have been impossible to fake the moon landing in 1969, regardless of cost. You couldn`t get that many people to keep their mouth shut (thousands of people were in a position to know if it was faked). You couldn`t fake the reduced gravity (no, changes in film speed don`t work well enough to avoid detection). You couldn`t create a large enough set with a good enough vacuum.

    You could fake the images today with CGI, but not in 1969 and that wouldn`t be faking all of it anyway.
  78. Profile photo of seabass101dg
    seabass101dg Male 18-29
    478 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:46 pm
    Buzz Aldrin just got 100 times awesomer.
  79. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    The Russians had been landing unmanned probes since 1966. It would have been far cheaper to land a probe on the moon than a person, and couple it with wide-ranging press coverage featuring compelling, fantastically convincing fake imagery.

    Who had ever seen someone walk on the moon? Who knows what it really looks like? No one has been since...
  80. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:48 pm
    I believe we did it.

    I just would have faked it for cheaper.
  81. Profile photo of 3002-3038
    3002-3038 Female 18-29
    633 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:50 pm
    -_- ignorant people annoy me..
  82. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    Seriously, who at the time had means to verify the truth of the moon landings, seeing as apparently the United States was the most technologically advanced civilization the world had ever known?

    Nobody. Nobody on Earth could prove they were lying. So why not fake it for much cheaper? THAT is good governance.

    Again, your initial premise is incorrect. The level of technology needed to determine if something is fake is not necessarily the same as that needed to fake it.

    Since your initial premise is incorrect, conclusions drawn from it are invalid.

    You`re wrong about the last bit, too, because you`re overlooking the cost of an uncovered fraud.

    Even if it was true that no-one in 1969 could have detected a fake (and that is *not* true) and even if you could somehow keep everyone silent (which you couldn`t), there was no telling how quickly the USSR would improve their tech or how long they would remain the enemy.
  83. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm
    You know, I was thinking about getting into this argument, as I`m currently studying to be an astronautical engineer, but then I remembered I have more important things to do.

    There is no point arguing against conspiracy theorists and hoax believers. You are mentally deficient and/or disturbed, and no matter what, you can never be convinced to think otherwise.

    Arguing agaist you is a lot like hitting your head against a brick wall: you just end up with a broken skull and the wall still standing.
  84. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm
    So, even assuming that your arguments are right, which they aren`t, it would still be bad governance, not good, because it would have left the USA open to looking like liars as well as incompetents as soon as the tech in the USSR improved enough, which could have been any time. Using your own line of argument the consequences of faking it were worse than the consequences of not doing so, so it would have been bad governance, not good governance. It would have been really bad short-termism, trading some good political imagery then for a lot of really bad political imagery some years later.
  85. Profile photo of Lobotomy
    Lobotomy Male 13-17
    495 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm
    "Who had ever seen someone walk on the moon? Who knows what it really looks like? No one has been since..."

    Yes they have.
  86. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:57 pm
    "Since you initial premise, stated above, is wrong, then your conclusions drawn from it are also wrong.

    It would have been impossible to fake the moon landing in 1969, regardless of cost. You couldn`t get that many people to keep their mouth shut (thousands of people were in a position to know if it was faked)."

    Answer: First, how do you know how many people were involved? Second, Manhattan Project - look it up, how many people kept their mouth`s shut then?

    "You couldn`t fake the reduced gravity (no, changes in film speed don`t work well enough to avoid detection)."

    How do you know that? You`d be amazed at what millions of dollars and patriotic citizens can produce.



    How are you so certain? What was simpler? Faking it, or doing it?
  87. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 4:58 pm
    Explain this, goaliejerry:

    i) How did they fake it low gravity and vacuum? Damn hard to fake those in 1969, i.e. without modern CGI.

    ii) How did they get everyone to stay silent? Many people would have to have been in on it.
  88. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:00 pm
    "Again, your initial premise is incorrect. The level of technology needed to determine if something is fake is not necessarily the same as that needed to fake it.

    Since your initial premise is incorrect, conclusions drawn from it are invalid."

    A little lesson in logic. If you are to claim a premise is incorrect, you need to show it to be false. WHO had the technology to prove a fake? I said nobody. You said......who?

    My premise so far has not been refuted other than by your simple denial.
  89. Profile photo of paddy215
    paddy215 Male 18-29
    1677 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:00 pm
    This guys whole life was probably obsessed with the moon landings and look what it got him. Let that be a lesson to all you other conspiracy eijits.

    Even if the moon landings were faked how would that make him a "coward". It takes serious balls to lie to the entire muthafuggin planet about something so big.
  90. Profile photo of iambluebeard
    iambluebeard Male 30-39
    338 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:01 pm
    good for buzz aldrin
  91. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:02 pm
    "i) How did they fake it low gravity and vacuum? Damn hard to fake those in 1969, i.e. without modern CGI."

    I don`t know, do you? They sure had sh*tloads of money to spend trying.

    "ii) How did they get everyone to stay silent? Many people would have to have been in on it."

    People today in the CIA and United States Armed Forces take secrets to their grave.

    And by the way, some people DO claim to know it was fake.



  92. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:04 pm
    I wanted to be an astronaut. Seems badass.

  93. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:04 pm
    How do you know that? You`d be amazed at what millions of dollars and patriotic citizens can produce.

    Yeah, like a manned mission to the moon.

    Doing it was easier and cheaper than faking it, so why think they faked it to save money? That doesn`t make sense even if you ignore the stupid short-termism of faking it according to your (incorrect) argument that the level of tech needed to detect a fake is the same as that needed to make it.

    But how do you think they faked low gravity and vacuum? Alien technology could do it and it`s no sillier believing in that conspiracy theory than in this one, so why not believe that they used alien technology from Area 51 or wherever?

    What was simpler? Faking it, or doing it?

    Doing it. That was very hard, but possible on paper. Faking it wasn`t. Also, faking it would have been worse for the USA, sooner or later, than not doing it.
  94. Profile photo of symmachus
    symmachus Male 30-39
    24 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:08 pm
    My grandfather was a pilot that was lucky enough to meet several astronauts that were involved in the American space program. I remember him telling me how hard those guys worked. Frankly I would be just as pissed off as Buzz if some frakin` ass tried to tell me that my hard work on something wasn`t real.

    It just reminds me of the constant anti-intellectualism that is rife within various pockets of Western civilization. What it comes down to is this: individuals who are envious/jealous of the power/status that comes with "elites" but wish that they could have it without the hard work and discipline. I wish more scientists would punch out douchebags who consider their ignorant viewpoints having the same validity as someone who has studied a segment of knowledge for decades. It`s like having a chronically obese dude amongst elite athletes and assuming that his results are equally valid.
  95. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:11 pm
    A little lesson in logic. If you are to claim a premise is incorrect, you need to show it to be false. WHO had the technology to prove a fake? I said nobody. You said......who?

    UK, Canada, France, Spain...the list goes on and on but most importantly includes the USSR. Who, in 1969, would have been overjoyed to be able to prove that the USA was lying about anything but especially about something that big and so public.

    Your argument was that the USA had better tech than any other country at the time. Which was probably true, but not by that much (unless you are also an alien conspiracy believer). So either matching levels of tech are needed to spot a fake (which isn`t true) or countries with a slightly lower level of tech could have done it. Even if matching levels of tech were needed, how could the president know when any other country, but the USSR in particular, would catch up to 1969 USA levels?
  96. Profile photo of Monosandalos
    Monosandalos Male 30-39
    277 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:12 pm
    @Angilion:
    For the sake of argument, I`ll just jump in and ask, why would `they` need to create a vacuum if `they` faked it?
    And as far as thousands of people keeping secrets, government would not be possible if that didn`t happen.
    For the record I don`t believe in the conspiracy, but I do believe if you are to debunk stuff you need to rid yourself of certain erroneous assumptions, like you accuse other people for having. Peace
  97. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:20 pm
    For the sake of argument, I`ll just jump in and ask, why would `they` need to create a vacuum if `they` faked it?

    Because of the things that behaved on film as they would in a vaccum. Nowadays you could fake that with CGI, but in 1969 CGI wasn`t up to it.

    And as far as thousands of people keeping secrets, government would not be possible if that didn`t happen.

    Yes, but the same secret and such a juicy one? Including people who weren`t in organisations where secrecy is part of the culture, like the military or CIA.
  98. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    "Your argument was that the USA had better tech than any other country at the time."

    Russian knock-off B-29.


    Russian knock-off Space Shuttle.


    Look at these piece of crap Russian knock-offs of American technology. Russian competitiveness during the Cold War was more a product of government scare mongering (on both sides) than actual fact.

    After the fall of the iron curtain, it was revealed the Russians were severely outclassed technologically, due to America`s vast resources.

    I don`t believe for a second the United States did not understand that the Russians were significantly outclassed in the space race - to the point that we could fake a moon landing and they wouldn`t kno
  99. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    "That was very hard, but possible on paper. Faking it wasn`t. Also, faking it would have been worse for the USA, sooner or later, than not doing it."

    These are baseless statements. "On paper," how is making a movie as complicated as launching a manned mission to the moon? Movies project vs. Rocket Technology. Hmmmm.

    And if we accept the premise that the moon landings were faked, they IN FACT worked out damn well for the U.S.
  100. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:23 pm
    This was fun. Its more likely it happened than not.
  101. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:23 pm
    For the sake of argument, I`ll just jump in and ask, why would `they` need to create a vacuum if `they` faked it?
    Because they performed the hammer and feather experiment, footage of which is easily available on Youtube. It requires a vacuum to work.
  102. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm
    These are baseless statements. "On paper," how is making a movie as complicated as launching a manned mission to the moon? Movies project vs. Rocket Technology. Hmmmm.

    i) A faked moon landing would have been a lot more than a movie.

    ii) The movie section would have required special effects that couldn`t be done.

    So yes, it would have been more of a problem than actually doing it.

    And if we accept the premise that the moon landings were faked, they IN FACT worked out damn well for the U.S.

    And if we accept the premise that the Golden Gate bridge is built out of cheese, cheese IN FACT is an excellent building material.

    That does not make cheese an excellent building material, because the premise is wrong.
  103. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    Hammer and Feather experiment performed by the crew of Apollo 15, on the moon.
  104. Profile photo of Monosandalos
    Monosandalos Male 30-39
    277 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    @almightybob1 Point taken, off to view the vids :-)
    Thanks for the heads up.
  105. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:29 pm
    I don`t believe for a second the United States did not understand that the Russians were significantly outclassed in the space race - to the point that we could fake a moon landing and they wouldn`t kno

    It`s worth noting that I never said the USA *didn`t* have better tech in 1969.

    Even accepting for the sake of argument your underlying assumption that people with inferior tech can`t detect a fake made with superior tech (which isn`t necessarily true), you still have the problem that there are many places that have better tech in 2010 than the USA had in 1969. So why haven`t anyone uncovered the fake you claim exists?
  106. Profile photo of Peveo4589
    Peveo4589 Male 18-29
    430 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm
    I think you guys are missing the point. Buzz Aldrin is one awesome old guy. I would not take that s*** either if i was him.
  107. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm
    "So why haven`t anyone uncovered the fake you claim exists?"

    Because no one cares anymore, plus that whole state secrets doctrine preventing disclosure. Its not like the U.S. just says, "Come on in everyone, interview everyone there, heres our record books and original copies of video. Go to town!"

    No, you get the official versions of records, nothing more.

    The Russians collapsed under their own weight, because their strength was a sham. The winner`s version of history is the one recorded in the history book, and lo and behold, in American history books, the USA kicked ass.

    Real or fake, either way, I just say, USA! USA! USA!

    Seriously, my point is in no way anti-U.S. If we could beat the Russians AND save billions, now that is good governance.
  108. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:37 pm
    I`d keep my mouth shut for a mansion and a pension.
  109. Profile photo of Cartunze
    Cartunze Male 60-69
    841 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 5:51 pm
    Good one, Buzz.
  110. Profile photo of fivezones
    fivezones Male 40-49
    1021 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    We went to the moon in 1969 but somehow can`t figure out how to do it anymore. According to NASA we need 15 more years to develop the technology to go back to the moon. Yet we supposedly went 40 years ago. Fascintating, really! Fascinating how much Baloney the first moon visit really was
  111. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:15 pm
    Seriously, how come there`s always ONE stubborn idiotic guy who argue to the end, despite continually being proven wrong?

    Just because they could have faked the moon landing, doesn`t mean they did. It`s entirely possible to go to the moon, just as it was back then. I can make the calculations, even. The only thing is the US insists on having manned missions everywhere they go, in part because of nationalism and PR.
  112. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:16 pm
    "We went to the moon in 1969 but somehow can`t figure out how to do it anymore. According to NASA we need 15 more years to develop the technology to go back to the moon. Yet we supposedly went 40 years ago. Fascintating, really! Fascinating how much Baloney the first moon visit really was"

    Source or it didn`t happen.
  113. Profile photo of I-IS-BORED
    I-IS-BORED Male 18-29
    2419 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    this is from 2002
  114. Profile photo of joofro
    joofro Male 18-29
    548 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    @fivezones

    *bologna

    we`ll start listening once you learn how to spell.
  115. Profile photo of jakeamadude
    jakeamadude Male 18-29
    105 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    Go Buzz!
  116. Profile photo of sandtalker
    sandtalker Male 30-39
    49 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:34 pm
    Has anybody pointed a telescope at the landing site, and observed the flag and landing gear of the eagle? It seems that a committed anti-moon-landers would do so to prove their point!
  117. Profile photo of zephyer
    zephyer Male 40-49
    23 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:43 pm
    Why bother going? We got our hands full down here.
    Besides, all the talk about what has been invented for the program. It was all invented here not up there. There are no velcro farms on the moon.
  118. Profile photo of zephyer
    zephyer Male 40-49
    23 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:44 pm
    Why bother going? We got our hands full down here.
    Besides, all the talk about what has been invented for the program. It was all invented here not up there. There are no velcro farms on the moon.
    But, WAY TO GO BUZZ, Kick him the sack too next time.
  119. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36213 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:50 pm
    Go BUZZ! Hit Him Again!

    To Infinity And Beyond!
  120. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36213 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:52 pm
    " It was all invented here not up there." You are right... it was invented here so they could go there. You are reaping the benefits and whining about it.

    " There are no velcro farms on the moon " That is the single stupidest thing I`ve ever read. It`s stupider than stupid! It is Stupidest!
  121. Profile photo of handeman77
    handeman77 Male 40-49
    240 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 6:52 pm
    Should have choked him out.
  122. Profile photo of whocares3725
    whocares3725 Male 18-29
    310 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 7:00 pm
    Do people still believe we didn`t go to the moon? Or was I the delusional one believing Americans weren`t THAT stupid.
  123. Profile photo of dax2009
    dax2009 Female 50-59
    322 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 7:05 pm
    There was a segment on (West Wing?) tv where they talked about how much it cost the US to build a pen that would work in space (without gravity) mucho mucho $. Then they talked about how much it cost the Russians, which was 0. The Russians used a pencil... not really the point here, but still...
  124. Profile photo of shock-n-awe
    shock-n-awe Male 18-29
    197 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 7:17 pm
    There is actually proof that man has been on the moon. To be honest I am disgusted that I even have to do this but anyway. You can read on NASA`s website about Apollo astronauts leaving reflectors on the moon which can reflect light back to earth. You don`t have to take my word for it. Mythbusters has been there and done that. You can check it out right here.
  125. Profile photo of ElMustache
    ElMustache Male 18-29
    1625 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 7:28 pm
    *facepalm* Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but there comes a point when you need to get punched in the face, as beautifully executed here.
  126. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3275 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 7:44 pm
    1) I believe that we landed on the moon every time we say we have.
    2) I love the Mythbusters.
    3) Unfortunately, the Mythbusters just proved that something man made is on the moon, not that we ever landed there. There`s man made stuff on Mars, and we`ve never been there.
  127. Profile photo of freddyferret
    freddyferret Male 40-49
    11742 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 7:47 pm
    Go Buzz! He should`ve kicked him in the nuts too. That guy has to feel like a big pussy after getting decked by a guy old enough to be his grandpa.
  128. Profile photo of GuardinGnome
    GuardinGnome Male 18-29
    2893 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 8:10 pm
    Whoever thinks we didn`t land on the moon also thinks that our government planned 9/11.
    In other words, you`re no better than Rosie O`Donell.
    Think about that.
  129. Profile photo of bingo5765
    bingo5765 Male 18-29
    207 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 8:19 pm
    This is exactly the response I would give if some snot-nosed nasal voiced retard said the crowning achievement of my career was fake and that I was a liar.

    Bravo Buzz. Good job.
  130. Profile photo of Wentzel142
    Wentzel142 Male 13-17
    136 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 8:30 pm
    "Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but there comes a point when you need to get punched in the face, as beautifully executed here."

    I couldn`t agree more.
  131. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 8:44 pm
    Unfortunately, the Mythbusters just proved that something man made is on the moon, not that we ever landed there. There`s man made stuff on Mars, and we`ve never been there.

    They also proved that some of the the statements made by conspiracy believers are false.

    For those who haven`t seen it, what they did was to test some of the claims of "<x> couldn`t happen on the moon, therefore <x> was faked" by replicating conditions on the moon and seeing if <x> could happen. So, for example, some conspiracy believers claimed that the footprints are too sharply defined to be real, that a person walking on the moon could not leave such well defined prints. So the mythbusters attached a spacesuit boot to a lever, put some lunar surface material in a vacuum chamber with the boot and used the lever to push the boot down with the force of a person walking on the moon. Perfect footprint, therefore the claim is wrong.
  132. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 8:45 pm
    Kudos to Mr. Aldrin. That fcuker had it coming.
  133. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 8:47 pm
    "Do people still believe we didn`t go to the moon? Or was I the delusional one believing Americans weren`t THAT stupid."

    There are still people who believe the Earth is flat. And some even believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
  134. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 8:50 pm
    I`m kicking myself for missing the most obvious rebuttal to goaliejerry`s claim that faking the moon landing would have cost 1/10th as much as doing it and would therefore have been good governance.

    By June 1969:

    The USA had developed the technology for a manned lunar landing.

    They had built the stuff for it.

    They had trained the crew and ground support for it.

    They carried out a lunar mission at that time.

    This disproves goaliejerry`s argument because it proves that *they spent the money needed for a manned lunar mission*. Faking it, far from costing 1/10th as much, would have cost much more because the fakery costs would be on top of the manned mission costs.

    Faking it would also have required technology far in advance of what was known to have existed in 1969 and so, if it was possible at all (and there`s no reason to think it was possible) it would have cost a huge amount.
  135. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 8:56 pm
    Has anybody pointed a telescope at the landing site, and observed the flag and landing gear of the eagle? It seems that a committed anti-moon-landers would do so to prove their point!

    i) It`s impossible because we don`t have telescopes capable of showing such small detail from such a large distance. You`d need a lunar mission to get a telescope close enough to see the landing gear on the surface.

    ii) It would be pointless. Conspiracy believers would believe the evidence they saw was faked and nobody else believes the landings were faked because the existing evidence they happened is overwhelming.
  136. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:03 pm
    We went to the moon in 1969 but somehow can`t figure out how to do it anymore. According to NASA we need 15 more years to develop the technology to go back to the moon.

    The USA could do another moon landing within a few years if they were willing to hurl money at it and accept a higher level of risk to the astronauts. It would only take a few years because building spaceships isn`t something you can do quickly from scratch even if you have them designed. The USA has the knowledge to do it again tomorrow. Many countries do now. Private organisations are talking seriously about doing it and probably would if they could make a profit from it.

    The 1960/70s moon landings worked, but they weren`t entirely safe. Those astronauts had a lot of bottle because no end of things could have gone wrong and killed them. There`s no point in that sort of risk now just to spend lots of money to return to the moon for...why, exactly?
  137. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:08 pm
    There was a segment on (West Wing?) tv where they talked about how much it cost the US to build a pen that would work in space (without gravity) mucho mucho $. Then they talked about how much it cost the Russians, which was 0. The Russians used a pencil... not really the point here, but still...

    Nice story, but not true. Pencils shed carbon when they`re used. The Russians weren`t stupid, so they wouldn`t have used something that would have left tiny flakes of carbon floating around to get into stuff and screw it up. You can`t afford to have bits floating around in a spaceship in zero g.
  138. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:12 pm
    Actually, I checked and I was partially wrong.

    The USSR did use pencils in the early days, despite the known risks. So did the USA.

    The pen was developed as a commercial product by a business (i.e. not by or for NASA and not at any cost to the USA) and then used by both the USA and the USSR...and anyone else who wanted a pen that could write at any angle.
  139. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:13 pm
    Private organisations are talking seriously about doing it and probably would if they could make a profit from it.

    I like to compare this to when Europe just started seafaring across the globe. They didn`t do it before because there was no means to profit from it. Until we have the means to profit from space (as in bring material into our economy) it`s not going to be very common.
  140. Profile photo of Karatekaty89
    Karatekaty89 Female 18-29
    2 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:14 pm
    What a douche! How dare he disrespect this man and call him a liar?!?
  141. Profile photo of xiquiripat
    xiquiripat Male 18-29
    2423 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:19 pm
    "We went to the moon in 1969 but somehow can`t figure out how to do it anymore. According to NASA we need 15 more years to develop the technology to go back to the moon. Yet we supposedly went 40 years ago. Fascintating, really! Fascinating how much Baloney the first moon visit really was"

    Wow you really are an idiot. There have been 12 people on the moon the last manned mission being Apollo 17 in 1972. It`s way more cost effective to send robots who can do extended missions than waste a bunch of money on life support for a crew who will only be there a couple days.
  142. Profile photo of chunkymonkie
    chunkymonkie Male 13-17
    670 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:27 pm
    i find it funny that buzz lightyear and buzz aldrin are both spacemen.
  143. Profile photo of mvangild
    mvangild Male 30-39
    527 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:32 pm
    Way to go Buzz!!! He did show some restraint, though. If it were me, I would have kept at him until he was a smear on the concrete.

    As for moon landing conspiratorists, I think they just need to be beaten with the one overwhelming piece of evidence that shows we did go to the moon: moonrocks. But, that`s just me. :)

    And finally, I think I would have gone with crayons (or at least a grease pencil) rather than a pen or pencil.
  144. Profile photo of Gompers
    Gompers Male 13-17
    59 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:32 pm
    Good for Buzz....

    Moonlanding was original `shop

    lol jk i think its real
  145. Profile photo of Gleeballs
    Gleeballs Female 18-29
    850 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:33 pm
    yikes. i bet he gets that kind of crap from people all the time. hes oldschool tho.. real world war 2 style... when another man insults your bravery and integrity they get punched right in the face. :D
  146. Profile photo of Gleeballs
    Gleeballs Female 18-29
    850 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:36 pm
    ohh yeahh has anyone posted the interview ali g did with buzz aldrin yet??? "do you think that man will ever be able to walk on the sun? what if they went in winter, when the sun is cold??" lmfao..
    ali g exposes the moon landing conspiracy.
  147. Profile photo of kralmir
    kralmir Male 18-29
    351 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 9:45 pm
    "yikes. i bet he gets that kind of crap from people all the time. hes oldschool tho.. real world war 2 style... when another man insults your bravery and integrity they get punched right in the face. :D"

    great, its just that in this politically correct time honor and the ability to look yourself in the mirror got pushed aside in favor of not going to jail got quite some time. its a shame really:(
  148. Profile photo of Lucky2u
    Lucky2u Male 18-29
    315 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 10:21 pm
    I think it`s really drated up we`re still having this problem with people arguing wether or not it was a hoax. It has already been proven that the clear truth is--- (COMMENT CENSORED.)
  149. Profile photo of adlinbaby
    adlinbaby Female 18-29
    404 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    POW right in the kisser
  150. Profile photo of whipplefunk
    whipplefunk Male 30-39
    971 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 11:03 pm
    How does it feel to get clocked by an old man? Stupid moron...who the F cares if it happened or not? Does it even matter anymore?
  151. Profile photo of SvampeBob
    SvampeBob Male 18-29
    3076 posts
    September 26, 2010 at 11:28 pm
    holy poo what a drating ass hole, the man walked on the mon that`s drating awesome! kick the drating conspirasy poo out of him!!!
  152. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 12:11 am
    "@Angillion "open mind" does not mean "assigning equal probablity to all possibilities regardless of how likely or unlikely they are". "

    Correct. I didn`t say I gave the question of them being faked as much credence as if they happened. I`m not a conspiracy nut but anyone who believes 100% everything that they haven`t seen with their own eyes is a fool in my opinion regardless of how much evidence is stacked in its favour.
  153. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 12:11 am
    @ dax2009 "There was a segment on (West Wing?) tv where they talked about how much it cost the US to build a pen that would work in space (without gravity) mucho mucho $. Then they talked about how much it cost the Russians, which was 0. The Russians used a pencil... not really the point here, but still..."

    That`s a half-truth, the pen wasn`t nearly as expensive as the rumours claim. And only an idiot would use a graphite pencil in space. The Russians used grease pencils until they developed their own space pen.

    Source
  154. Profile photo of frenchroast
    frenchroast Male 30-39
    446 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 12:23 am
    Why I outta... POWWW...straight to the moon! -Ralph Cramden
  155. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 12:26 am
    @ Buiadh "Correct. I didn`t say I gave the question of them being faked as much credence as if they happened. I`m not a conspiracy nut but anyone who believes 100% everything that they haven`t seen with their own eyes is a fool in my opinion regardless of how much evidence is stacked in its favour."


    Not 100%, more like 99.9999999999999... %. Do you really believe in gravity? Your own existence? All that could be a load of crap as well, but it`s quite unlikely.
  156. Profile photo of polybius
    polybius Male 18-29
    76 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 12:33 am
    Heh, his fist landed on his face.
  157. Profile photo of crackyhoss
    crackyhoss Male 18-29
    254 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 1:01 am
    score one for buzz.
  158. Profile photo of the-x-ray
    the-x-ray Male 30-39
    89 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 2:05 am
    about liars ;) what about the possibility he said something totally different to him to get this reaction and over-voiced it afterwards ? ;)
  159. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 2:09 am
    I`m glad to have avoided most of the hoax crap posted here today.

    I`ve been to the Houston NASA facility, I touched an Apollo rocket. (it`s huge) Got to touch a rock brought back from the moon as well. I`d advise anyone to go there, On vacation, And see for themselves. NASA really has their stuff together.

    Which is why I thought it was a damn shame that Obama killed the Orion program, I guess Obama doesn`t have any `Hope` for NASA.
  160. Profile photo of tastytacos
    tastytacos Male 18-29
    13 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 2:36 am
    hahaha!!! really! if anyone with an IQ over 100 believes that the americans didn`t land on the moon please post after this, (for those that didn`t understand this, that`s people of average or higher intelligence and also, no, that`s not you, retard!)
  161. Profile photo of Lixa123
    Lixa123 Female 18-29
    579 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 2:41 am
    lol wow way to disrespect someone completely and not even consider another viewpoint.
  162. Profile photo of PierreJeanFR
    PierreJeanFR Male 40-49
    1360 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 2:54 am
    @Crakjakass I don`t doubt they went to the moon, but as your argument being to touch a rocket and to touch a rock to believe it is plain stupid.
    Stop touching yourself.
  163. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 2:56 am
    "We went to the moon in 1969 but somehow can`t figure out how to do it anymore. According to NASA we need 15 more years to develop the technology to go back to the moon. Yet we supposedly went 40 years ago. Fascintating, really! Fascinating how much Baloney the first moon visit really was"

    You totally misunderstand the concept. It`s not that we CANNOT or that the technology isn`t there... it`s other things.

    1. The original technology is so outdated that it would take years of training a horde of teams with the new technology.
    2. Is there anything on the moon that makes it worth the cost/time anymore?
    3. I think their sights are set on bigger and better things like Halon Colliders/ Anti-mater, etc.
    4. Do you have to work on being delusional?
  164. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 3:21 am
    "3. I think their sights are set on bigger and better things like Halon Colliders/ Anti-mater, etc. "

    How is that related to a space program?

    The only reason they sent people to the moon was national pride. Aside from the occasional flag-waving, buggy-driving and golfing, they did pretty much nothing a robot cannot do. There are several nations with their sights set on the moon; Japan is planning an unmanned landing, China and India are also planning missions (although China wants to send people, but that`s because they`re ass-backwards).
  165. Profile photo of Samsquanch
    Samsquanch Male 30-39
    792 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 3:24 am
    Why haven`t we gone back to the moon? Um...there was this little thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis that kinda diverted our attention for a smidge, and the threat of nuclear war loomed.

    Since then, we`ve been a little pre-occupied with spending money on our wars instead of spending money on space programs. It`s the Almighty Dollar. There`s no return on investment in space travel; there is on grabbing countries rich in oil.
  166. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 3:28 am
    PierreJeanFR: I didn`t need to touch either of those objects to believe man landed on the moon, I was advising people to go to NASA`s Houston facility and see for themselves. Now go retrieve your mind out of the gutter
  167. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 3:28 am
    So yeah, to sum it up, there`s a lot of traffic planned to the moon, and there have been plenty of probes there since the 1960`s.

    The rockets used to go the first times work now as they did back then.

    They stopped using it in 1973, though.

    Saturn V

    I can suggest checking out Astronautix if you want to know more about the technology they used.

    Hoax? Absolutely not. You`re not just insulting the astronauts who went there, but also the thousands of people who worked on the project, and the entire space industry. Please STFU.
  168. Profile photo of metalm0rgan
    metalm0rgan Male 18-29
    110 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 3:36 am
    He deserved a slap if you ask me.
  169. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 3:43 am
    The reasons to go to back to the moon are several, First off it`s a stepping stone to reach Mars, By building a base there we save money and resources. There is water on the moon that can be turned into fuel for the journey to Mars, That way we don`t have to waste rocket fuel to haul more rocket fuel into orbit. There is also more science that can be done on the moon now that we have the technology to so. The moon also has mining opportunities and gives us the ability to send probes out into deep space cheaper.
  170. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 3:43 am
    Put it this way...

    ...it`s far easier to go to the moon than to fake it and manage to keep it a secret for so many decades.

    That`s not the only reason for believing the truth that we did indeed go to the moon, but it`s a straightforward counter to the whole motivation to fake it in the first place.
  171. Profile photo of amonamarth20
    amonamarth20 Male 18-29
    250 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 3:57 am
    "...it`s far easier to go to the moon than to fake it and manage to keep it a secret for so many decades."

    its actually remarkably easy if you have access to the equipment.

    you get a close knit group of people who wouldn`t give up information to anyone, you hide it in a random warehouse and your done and with it being the government and not just some hippy with a camera. the government actually has the resources and manpower to KEEP it a secret
  172. Profile photo of binarystarr
    binarystarr Male 30-39
    479 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 4:29 am
    wow, this story is old! This happened in 2002...
  173. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 4:33 am
    I`ve been to the Houston NASA facility, I touched an Apollo rocket. (it`s huge) Got to touch a rock brought back from the moon as well. I`d advise anyone to go there, On vacation, And see for themselves. NASA really has their stuff together.

    Yeah, I was at Cape Canaveral in summer and they had that too, an Apollo rocket stretching the length of the room and some space rock. It was amazing, really cool.
  174. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 5:27 am
    "the government actually has the resources and manpower to KEEP it a secret"

    Rubbish. The US government wasn`t able to keep prisoner abuses in Abu Graib a secret, and you`d think they`d want to!

    I often think that anyone who believes their government is capable of such grand airtight conspiracies has never MET their government.
  175. Profile photo of Intaresting
    Intaresting Male 18-29
    812 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 5:31 am
    Old but funny.
  176. Profile photo of Caretta
    Caretta Male 18-29
    540 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 5:38 am
    Who else wants to yell at the moon with Buzz Aldrin?
  177. Profile photo of Intaresting
    Intaresting Male 18-29
    812 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 5:38 am
    Every counter-conspiracist here, you`re missing the point. It doesn`t matter that much whether faked it or not, it`s that they ARE capable of doing it, and there are reasons why they would`ve done it. Everyone who just accept what their government says without question is a fool.
  178. Profile photo of tedgp
    tedgp Male 30-39
    3287 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 5:53 am
    The reasons to go to back to the moon are several, First off it`s a stepping stone to reach Mars, By building a base there we save money and resources. There is water on the moon that can be turned into fuel for the journey to Mars, That way we don`t have to waste rocket fuel to haul more rocket fuel into orbit. There is also more science that can be done on the moon now that we have the technology to so. The moon also has mining opportunities and gives us the ability to send probes out into deep space cheaper.
    ----------------------------------

    Yup. Lets mine our moon, and change the earths tidal systems, planatery gravity, magnetic poles etc.
  179. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 5:57 am
    It doesn`t matter that much whether faked it or not, it`s that they ARE capable of doing it, and there are reasons why they would`ve done it.
    They are, now. They probably weren`t, then.
    Plus there is plenty of evidence to support that they did.
    Plus, it kind of DOES matter. In fact, it`s the most important part.

    If I say "my granddad invented the silicon transistor in 1921, but the government conspired to keep it a secret for three decades", and then you say "Prove it", would you then accept the response "Well it doesn`t really matter whether he did or not, but he was CAPABLE of doing it, and there are good reasons why he would have done it"?
  180. Profile photo of Lukgeezy
    Lukgeezy Male 18-29
    606 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 6:03 am
    Chin Checked! lmao!
  181. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3275 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 6:12 am
    "wow, this story is old! This happened in 2002..."

    According to Wikipedia (yea, I know...), it happened in 2009.
  182. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 6:21 am
    The reasons to go to back to the moon are several, First off it`s a stepping stone to reach Mars, By building a base there we save money and resources. There is water on the moon that can be turned into fuel for the journey to Mars, That way we don`t have to waste rocket fuel to haul more rocket fuel into orbit.
    -------------
    So you support taxes...
  183. Profile photo of Froggybuster
    Froggybuster Male 13-17
    122 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 6:21 am
    The reasons to go to back to the moon are several, First off it`s a stepping stone to reach Mars, By building a base there we save money and resources. There is water on the moon that can be turned into fuel for the journey to Mars, That way we don`t have to waste rocket fuel to haul more rocket fuel into orbit. There is also more science that can be done on the moon now that we have the technology to so. The moon also has mining opportunities and gives us the ability to send probes out into deep space cheaper.
    ----------------------------------

    Yup. Lets mine our moon, and change the earths tidal systems, planatery gravity, magnetic poles etc.

    ____________________________________
    What`s so funny is that neither of these people have any idea what they`re talking about...
  184. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 6:36 am
    the moon really isn`t that mining-worthy. And a high orbit would serve just as well as a stepping stone for interplanetary missions (which it does).
  185. Profile photo of tommy2X4
    tommy2X4 Male 50-59
    3441 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 6:37 am
    Don`t call an ex officer a coward. Or me!
  186. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 6:59 am
    @CrakrJak

    Like I said: First it`s got to be profitable.
  187. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36213 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 7:08 am
    Why Go To The Moon?

    Because it would require a lot of science and science always pays off....eventually.

    In 1897 when Sir John Joseph Thomson discovered the electron everyone said "interesting but it has no practical aplication". 100 years later the world is run on electron-ics.

    the list of benefits we got from going before is too long to list here. start by looking at your cell phone and figuring out how much of it started with space research.

    then ON TO MARS!
  188. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 7:20 am



    3. I think their sights are set on bigger and better things like Halon Colliders/ Anti-mater, etc. "

    "How is that related to a space program?"

    Dude read up on it. You don`t have to be an physics major to understand all the new technology that comes from what we are learning from these things. Why would you not think that by learning about the basic building blocks of space itself can and will help us in our space program. What sort of experiments do you think they do currently in the international space station? They are not up there drinking beer and sight seeing, I am sure of that.
  189. Profile photo of CoffeeDiiva
    CoffeeDiiva Female 40-49
    1605 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 7:29 am
    You got Buzz!!
  190. Profile photo of CoffeeDiiva
    CoffeeDiiva Female 40-49
    1605 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 7:29 am
    I meant Go not got lol
  191. Profile photo of inaria
    inaria Female 18-29
    1515 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 7:37 am
    Good job Buzz! That guy totally deserved it. Asswipe
  192. Profile photo of Skeezer1991
    Skeezer1991 Male 18-29
    722 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 7:53 am
    LOL fuuckin douchebag more than deserved that. If it were me he would`ve gone down sooner...
  193. Profile photo of BlueOrchid
    BlueOrchid Female 18-29
    158 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:03 am
    Oh, Buzz!


    (Fun fact: he`s from my hometown.)
  194. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:15 am
    madest: "So you support taxes..."

    Yes, But the space program is actually a small part of the overall budget. We built several space shuttles when taxes where much lower than they are now, We had more employers, jobs, and a better economy as well.

    I`m not for `anti-tax`, As a certain post on saturday tried to say. It`s just not financially sane for there to be `Zero Taxes`. Just as it`s not sane for the government to over tax it`s people either.

    Now, Just what the hell does that have to do with Buzz Aldrin punching an idiot in the face ?
  195. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:21 am
    Cajun247: A lot of things derived from the space program have certainly been profitable, and benefited our world. Amtrak, The Post Office, The VA hospitals, Medicare, All are not `profitable` in the monetary sense yet they do benefit society as a whole.
  196. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:31 am
    "Dude read up on it. You don`t have to be an physics major to understand all the new technology that comes from what we are learning from these things. Why would you not think that by learning about the basic building blocks of space itself can and will help us in our space program. What sort of experiments do you think they do currently in the international space station? They are not up there drinking beer and sight seeing, I am sure of that."

    No need to be rude.

    I meant that politically, the funding is unrelated. All science goes hand in hand, so of course they`re related. But only marginally.

    There`s no "We`re not going to the moon because we`re building a large Hadron collider instead" phenomenon. Different funding sources, different goals.

    Besides, the future of the space industry lies in commercial applications more than anything. There`s currently very low interest at a national level. And I happen to know, I`m an astronau
  197. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:31 am
    Bam! to the moon!
  198. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:33 am
    tics major.
  199. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2211 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:42 am
    He should have punched him harder and more often.

  200. Profile photo of GiveChase
    GiveChase Female 18-29
    535 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:57 am
    To infinity, and BEYOND!
  201. Profile photo of megavidiot
    megavidiot Male 30-39
    901 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:58 am
    Yeah Buzz!!!
  202. Profile photo of darkhawk
    darkhawk Male 70 & Over
    260 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 9:11 am
    Go buzz GO =D
  203. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 9:16 am
    Weren`t you talking about going to the moon though CrakrJak? Because that requires a lot more money than putting someone into Low Earth Orbit.
    How that works:
    Step 1)Leave Earth surface ascend to parking orbit
    Step 2)Accelerate to escape velocity
    Step 3)Steering
    Step 4)Enter moon orbit and decelerate
    Step 5)Land
    And of course repeat to return to Earth.

    In my professional opinion here are three things we need first before any net profit is possible.
    1)Carbon nanotubes
    2)Space elevators
    3)Helium-3 fusion reactors
  204. Profile photo of Max13007
    Max13007 Male 18-29
    200 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 9:29 am
    epic win is epic
  205. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 9:57 am
    "Step 2)Accelerate to escape velocity "

    Uh, no?
  206. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:01 am
    @yarrrpirate

    This page should explain things for you.
  207. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:01 am
    you get a close knit group of people who wouldn`t give up information to anyone, you hide it in a random warehouse and your done and with it being the government and not just some hippy with a camera. the government actually has the resources and manpower to KEEP it a secret

    You`ve managed to prove that you have absolutely no idea what would have been required to fake the moon landings, but that`s all.

    How do you think they faked low gravity?

    How do you think they faked a vacuum?

    These aren`t things you can do with a handful of people in a warehouse with a camera in 1969. Maybe with modern CGI and some very skilled people, but then you`re arguing that they had time travel in 1969.

    Your idea is dependent on the USA having had alien technology in 1969 that was far in advance of human technology. Any more conspiracies?

    Also, why fake it when you`ve spent the money and have the kit to do it for real?
  208. Profile photo of Toider
    Toider Male 18-29
    452 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:02 am
    He`s from a different time...when punching somebody for being a douche was an acceptable practice.
  209. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:08 am
    It doesn`t matter that much whether faked it or not, it`s that they ARE capable of doing it, and there are reasons why they would`ve done it. Everyone who just accept what their government says without question is a fool.

    Not as much of a fool as those who are determined to ignore the evidence so they can cling to their faith in a conspiracy.

    There`s no evidence that they *were* capable of faking it in 1969. Maybe now with outstanding CGI, but not in 1969. Special effects weren`t up to faking low g and vacuum.

    They might have had reason to fake it, if it had been possible, if it wasn`t for the fact that they had the ability to do it for real, that faking it would have cost more (because it would be on top of the money already spent) and it would have been a huge political risk. It was all about beating the USSR - if anyone had found out the USA was faking, the USSR would have won far more than if the USA did nothing.
  210. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:32 am
    "@yarrrpirate

    This page should explain things for you."

    Mhmm... I am well aware of the escape trajectory. And where does it say this is how you get to the moon?
  211. Profile photo of Alpha1971
    Alpha1971 Male 30-39
    364 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:41 am
    Buzz Aldrin. 72 years old at the time of filming.

    Never charged

    Proving he`s still awesome.
  212. Profile photo of Weakmonkey
    Weakmonkey Male 18-29
    190 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:45 am
    "He`s from a different time...when punching somebody for being a douche was an acceptable practice."

    I wish this was still an acceptable practice. I think the world would be a much better place if douches werent allowed to roam free.
  213. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:49 am
    Actually now that you mention it this should just fine.

    In any case did you miss the part about it being a "capture orbit" as well?
  214. Profile photo of Luniz82
    Luniz82 Male 18-29
    588 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:51 am
    Call a man a liar and a coward to his face, be prepared to get punched in yours. That guy got exactly what he deserved. I wish there would of been more of a beating though.
  215. Profile photo of Jowsh
    Jowsh Male 18-29
    1237 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:02 am
    Oh yes Angillion, because if "special effects" weren`t up to par then space faring technology probably was...

    As for the USA being unlikely to cover something up, just look at history!
  216. Profile photo of charmingman
    charmingman Male 18-29
    146 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:05 am
    Some of the phyics on this tread makes me weep. Especially this:

    Yup. Lets mine our moon, and change the earths tidal systems, planatery gravity, magnetic poles etc.

    I mean, the moon has nothing to do with the last two! It does alter the tides but you would have to mine so much of the moon that you significantly altered its mass (see Newtons law of gravitation) which would be trillions of tonnes.
  217. Profile photo of heresjonny
    heresjonny Male 13-17
    104 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:08 am
    LAD
  218. Profile photo of devssieger
    devssieger Male 18-29
    1 post
    September 27, 2010 at 11:19 am
    @Jowsh: I created a profile for the sole purpose of saying that our government couldn`t even successfully cover up fellatio in The White House. You overestimate some of it`s abilities.
  219. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:20 am
    "Actually now that you mention it this should just fine.

    In any case did you miss the part about it being a "capture orbit" as well?"

    Where did you miss the part where I said I was an Astronautics major?

    The Hohmann transfer is the most energy efficient method. The Moon is still in Earth`s gravitational well (it orbits the Earth, remember?), so there`s really no need for escape velocity. The delta v of a Hohmann transfer (or even a low-thrust spiral transfer, ugh...) is lower.
  220. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:31 am
    @yarrrpirate

    So am I. I was simply addressing CrakrJak`s assertion on establishing permanent bases on the moon. Basically a mission to re-man and resupply the ISS is much cheaper than a manned mission to the moon. I`m not wrong there am I?
  221. Profile photo of TxTnViolence
    TxTnViolence Male 30-39
    197 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:31 am
    Calling Buzz Aldrin a coward? ARE YOU FnCKING SERIOUS?
  222. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:34 am
    Actually low-energy transfers are the most efficient (hence the name) but with trade-off of longer mission times. They`ve used those to get to the moon as well. Remember the Hiten probe?
  223. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:45 am
    "I`m not wrong there am I?"

    No, of course not. A lunar base is popular sci-fi and serves little purpose when you can have orbital stations. I was just arguing against the escape trajectory to get to the Moon.

    The low-thrust transfer is more efficient than the Hohmann transfer, but I was referring to the latter being far more efficient than the escape trajectory.
  224. Profile photo of Mr_Pedo_Bear
    Mr_Pedo_Bear Male 70 & Over
    997 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:47 am
    "Alleged" Come on If Russia your opponents who you were trying to one up and were monitoring it the entire time (actually a lot of different countries were monitoring passing on radio signals etc) It happened . Hate conspiracy theorists...
  225. Profile photo of tn11
    tn11 Male 18-29
    1587 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:55 am
    This. Is. Epic. Short. Sentences. Instill. Dramatic. Tone.

    But seriously, you have to be a dumb*ass to mess with Buzz. Man he`s still got it.
  226. Profile photo of meepmaker
    meepmaker Male 30-39
    6694 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 11:56 am
    To the moon Alice. To the moon.
  227. Profile photo of wellsy57
    wellsy57 Male 50-59
    229 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 12:58 pm
    Regarding mining on the moon. It`s potent with Helium-3. And many scientists believe it could very well be our future. It`ll be a huge undertaking to get up and running, but in the long run, it will pay for itself.

    Source
  228. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 1:06 pm
    @welleys

    Refer to the post I made on 9:16:01 AM.
  229. Profile photo of wellsy57
    wellsy57 Male 50-59
    229 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 1:20 pm
    @Cajun247 I saw that post. Just thought I`d add a source so the nice people making this such a wonderful thread could understand more about it. I`m not claiming any knowledge about it, but I had heard of it before.
  230. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 1:20 pm
    Oh yes Angillion, because if "special effects" weren`t up to par then space faring technology probably was...

    Look at the technology on the moon missions. It was 1960s technology.

    Look at the technology needed to fake vacuum and low gravity, amongst other things. At the very least it would require modern CGI, i.e. far more advanced than 1960s technology, and even that`s dubious because CGI is imperfect.

    Or just remain ignorant and continue to make a fool of yourself when you post. Your choice.
  231. Profile photo of lemmingboy15
    lemmingboy15 Male 18-29
    635 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 1:23 pm
    lol so the moon landing is now alleged?
  232. Profile photo of wellsy57
    wellsy57 Male 50-59
    229 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm
    Regarding mining on the moon. It`s potent with Helium-3. And many scientists believe it could very well be our future. It`ll be a huge undertaking to get up and running, but in the long run, it will pay for itself.

    Source
  233. Profile photo of yarrrpirate
    yarrrpirate Male 18-29
    394 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    "Regarding mining on the moon. It`s potent with Helium-3. And many scientists believe it could very well be our future. It`ll be a huge undertaking to get up and running, but in the long run, it will pay for itself. "


    Yeah, but there`s Helium-3 on Earth, not to mention plenty of deuterium and tritium. I`m not saying a lunar mining colony is stupid forever, but it`s stupid right now. As Cajun247 mentioned, we need fusion before it`s reasonable, and we have yet to master controlled fusion reactions.
  234. Profile photo of SPARTAKITTY
    SPARTAKITTY Female 18-29
    2123 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 1:50 pm
    Spaceman beat yo azz
  235. Profile photo of durdikkimeng
    durdikkimeng Male 50-59
    743 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    Coward and liar? That deserves a slapdown in anyones book.
    Whats it got do do with walking/not walking on the moon?
  236. Profile photo of DavidXJ
    DavidXJ Male 30-39
    1106 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    Awesome. Old bad-ass punches a dude for disrespecting him. Awesome.
  237. Profile photo of Stelly
    Stelly Male 30-39
    317 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    "wow, this story is old! This happened in 2002..."

    "According to Wikipedia (yea, I know...), it happened in 2009."
    -------------------------

    Well, the video (different post) was posted to youtube in 2007. WTG Wikipedia....

    oh and I found this from the same guy bugging Neil Armstrong...
    Youtube
  238. Profile photo of tuxman4
    tuxman4 Male 13-17
    368 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 7:38 pm
    I would probably punch someone for calling one of the most important things man has ever done a fake, too.
  239. Profile photo of HarryBalszak
    HarryBalszak Male 40-49
    1589 posts
    September 27, 2010 at 8:53 pm
    Why do I feel like I just watched a clip from "The Honeymooners?"
  240. Profile photo of vkdee
    vkdee Female 30-39
    59 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 12:11 am
    He got what he deserved!
  241. Profile photo of kingadaQ
    kingadaQ Male 18-29
    21 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 12:32 am
    BAD ASS!!
  242. Profile photo of eskimo9
    eskimo9 Male 18-29
    703 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 1:50 am
    Buzz Aldrin gains 1,000,000,000,000 Respect! Level Up! Buzz Aldrin is already at the maximum awesomeness level. Buzz Aldrin Wins At Life!
  243. Profile photo of Micktrex
    Micktrex Male 18-29
    141 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 3:51 am
    I hope he broke that guy`s jaw. Just listening to him talk was making me see red.
  244. Profile photo of Jowsh
    Jowsh Male 18-29
    1237 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 4:12 am
    Oh angillon you are right I feel such a fool, aunt Saskia simply cannot stop laughing at my ignorance, oh to be the village idiot

    I am merely pointing out that from the layman`s perspective, a moon landing, and the faking thereof do not require equal amounts of technology
  245. Profile photo of domisgood
    domisgood Male 18-29
    4868 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 4:25 am
    that guy deserved that, no doubt.
  246. Profile photo of plurr4all
    plurr4all Male 18-29
    153 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 9:25 am
    People who think no one walked on the moon should be strapped down directly under a Saturn 5 rocket as it takes off...
  247. Profile photo of Khronnus
    Khronnus Male 18-29
    621 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 10:03 am
    Even if he didn`t walk on the the move (And I believe he did) he would still be awesome for being a part of one of the biggest hoax`s ever. Still a pretty big achievement.

  248. Profile photo of digbychicken
    digbychicken Male 18-29
    235 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 10:05 am
    he didnt land on the moon obv it was wallace and gromit jeez
  249. Profile photo of benbowles
    benbowles Male 13-17
    75 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 10:20 am
    the woman in yellow narrowly missed the best thing since sliced bread.
  250. Profile photo of Aseliel
    Aseliel Male 30-39
    37 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    They never went to the moon hence why his been an non-nice individual about for all these years. Watch the NASA video of all of them when they got back. For guys that did something no other humans haven`t... They sure didn`t seem happy.
  251. Profile photo of 8BitHero
    8BitHero Male 18-29
    5414 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm
    He didn`t really land on the moon, and he can`t really land a punch. He is a liar who can`t the truth.
  252. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 28, 2010 at 5:01 pm
    For guys that did something no other humans haven`t... They sure didn`t seem happy.

    Yeah, if you watch the carefully selected clip of them after they`d been stuck in a box for ages like an exhibit at a zoo while people talked at them.

    There`s no end to the increasingly lame excuses conspiracy believers grab hold of so they can pretend their faith has any rational basis.
  253. Profile photo of PTPete
    PTPete Female 30-39
    1236 posts
    September 29, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    Calling a man with Buzz Aldrin`s career a coward is like spitting in the wind--you`re gonna get some blow-back. I sure hope his wife iced his hand & gave him a blow-J after this. Tough old bastards warm my heart.
  254. Profile photo of SunThunder
    SunThunder Male 18-29
    97 posts
    September 29, 2010 at 2:50 pm
    And that`s why astronaughts are awesome
  255. Profile photo of DickenMcHunt
    DickenMcHunt Male 18-29
    1299 posts
    October 1, 2010 at 2:15 am
    Even if the original moon landings were faked we`ve gone to the moon now... so why does it matter?

    Astrofag.

Leave a Reply