Man Confronts Buzz Aldrin

Submitted by: Cajun247 6 years ago in Weird

The man in the thumbnail is Bart Sibrel. He confronts Aldrin over his alleged moon landing.
There are 256 comments:
Male 1,299
Even if the original moon landings were faked we`ve gone to the moon now... so why does it matter?

Astrofag.
0
Reply
Male 97
And that`s why astronaughts are awesome
0
Reply
Female 1,236
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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]For guys that did something no other humans haven`t... They sure didn`t seem happy.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
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.
0
Reply
Male 37
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.
0
Reply
Male 75
the woman in yellow narrowly missed the best thing since sliced bread.
0
Reply
Male 235
he didnt land on the moon obv it was wallace and gromit jeez
0
Reply
Male 621
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.

0
Reply
Male 153
People who think no one walked on the moon should be strapped down directly under a Saturn 5 rocket as it takes off...
0
Reply
Male 4,867
that guy deserved that, no doubt.
0
Reply
Male 1,237
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
0
Reply
Male 141
I hope he broke that guy`s jaw. Just listening to him talk was making me see red.
0
Reply
Male 703
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!
0
Reply
Male 21
BAD ASS!!
0
Reply
Female 59
He got what he deserved!
0
Reply
Male 1,590
Why do I feel like I just watched a clip from "The Honeymooners?"
0
Reply
Male 367
I would probably punch someone for calling one of the most important things man has ever done a fake, too.
0
Reply
Male 317
"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
0
Reply
Male 1,106
Awesome. Old bad-ass punches a dude for disrespecting him. Awesome.
0
Reply
Male 759
Coward and liar? That deserves a slapdown in anyones book.
Whats it got do do with walking/not walking on the moon?
0
Reply
Female 2,120
Spaceman beat yo azz
0
Reply
Male 394
"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.
0
Reply
Male 312
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
0
Reply
Male 633
lol so the moon landing is now alleged?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Oh yes Angillion, because if "special effects" weren`t up to par then space faring technology probably was...[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 312
@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.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@welleys

Refer to the post I made on 9:16:01 AM.
0
Reply
Male 312
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
0
Reply
Male 6,694
To the moon Alice. To the moon.
0
Reply
Male 1,587
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.
0
Reply
Male 997
"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...
0
Reply
Male 394
"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.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
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?
0
Reply
Male 197
Calling Buzz Aldrin a coward? ARE YOU FnCKING SERIOUS?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@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?
0
Reply
Male 394
"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.
0
Reply
Male 1
@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.
0
Reply
Male 104
LAD
0
Reply
Male 146
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,237
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!
0
Reply
Male 587
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.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
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?
0
Reply
Male 190
"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.
0
Reply
Male 363
Buzz Aldrin. 72 years old at the time of filming.

Never charged

Proving he`s still awesome.
0
Reply
Male 394
"@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?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 452
He`s from a different time...when punching somebody for being a douche was an acceptable practice.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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[/quote]

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?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@yarrrpirate

This page should explain things for you.
0
Reply
Male 394
"Step 2)Accelerate to escape velocity "

Uh, no?
0
Reply
Male 200
epic win is epic
0
Reply
Male 10,855
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
0
Reply
Male 260
Go buzz GO =D
0
Reply
Male 901
Yeah Buzz!!!
0
Reply
Female 535
To infinity, and BEYOND!
0
Reply
Male 2,670
He should have punched him harder and more often.

0
Reply
Male 394
tics major.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Bam! to the moon!
0
Reply
Male 394
"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
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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 ?
0
Reply
Female 158
Oh, Buzz!


(Fun fact: he`s from my hometown.)
0
Reply
Male 720
LOL fuuckin douchebag more than deserved that. If it were me he would`ve gone down sooner...
0
Reply
Female 1,515
Good job Buzz! That guy totally deserved it. Asswipe
0
Reply
Female 1,604
I meant Go not got lol
0
Reply
Female 1,604
You got Buzz!!
0
Reply
Male 2,796



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.
0
Reply
Male 39,531
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!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@CrakrJak

Like I said: First it`s got to be profitable.
0
Reply
Male 3,477
Don`t call an ex officer a coward. Or me!
0
Reply
Male 394
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).
0
Reply
Male 122
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...
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]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.[/quote]
-------------
So you support taxes...
0
Reply
Male 3,326
"wow, this story is old! This happened in 2002..."

According to Wikipedia (yea, I know...), it happened in 2009.
0
Reply
Male 606
Chin Checked! lmao!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]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.[/quote]
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"?
0
Reply
Male 3,285
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.
0
Reply
Male 812
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.
0
Reply
Male 540
0
Reply
Male 812
Old but funny.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
"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.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 479
wow, this story is old! This happened in 2002...
0
Reply
Male 250
"...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
0
Reply
Male 2,850
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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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.
0
Reply
Male 110
He deserved a slap if you ask me.
0
Reply
Male 394
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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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
0
Reply
Male 792
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.
0
Reply
Male 394
"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).
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"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?
0
Reply
Male 1,360
@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.
0
Reply
Female 579
lol wow way to disrespect someone completely and not even consider another viewpoint.
0
Reply
Male 13
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!)
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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.
0
Reply
Male 89
about liars ;) what about the possibility he said something totally different to him to get this reaction and over-voiced it afterwards ? ;)
0
Reply
Male 254
score one for buzz.
0
Reply
Male 76
Heh, his fist landed on his face.
0
Reply
Male 394
@ 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.
0
Reply
Male 446
Why I outta... POWWW...straight to the moon! -Ralph Cramden
0
Reply
Male 394
@ 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
0
Reply
Male 6,737
"@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.
0
Reply
Male 3,076
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!!!
0
Reply
Male 1,151
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?
0
Reply
Female 404
POW right in the kisser
0
Reply
Male 315
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.)
0
Reply
Male 351
"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:(
0
Reply
Female 850
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.
0
Reply
Female 850
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
0
Reply
Male 59
Good for Buzz....

Moonlanding was original `shop

lol jk i think its real
0
Reply
Male 527
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.
0
Reply
Male 670
i find it funny that buzz lightyear and buzz aldrin are both spacemen.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
"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.
0
Reply
Female 2
What a douche! How dare he disrespect this man and call him a liar?!?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Private organisations are talking seriously about doing it and probably would if they could make a profit from it.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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...[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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![/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"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!
0
Reply
Male 2,868
Kudos to Mr. Aldrin. That fcuker had it coming.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 136
"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.
0
Reply
Male 207
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
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.
0
Reply
Male 11,739
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.
0
Reply
Male 3,326
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
*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.
0
Reply
Male 197
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.
0
Reply
Female 322
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...
0
Reply
Male 310
Do people still believe we didn`t go to the moon? Or was I the delusional one believing Americans weren`t THAT stupid.
0
Reply
Male 240
Should have choked him out.
0
Reply
Male 39,531
" 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!
0
Reply
Male 39,531
Go BUZZ! Hit Him Again!

To Infinity And Beyond!
0
Reply
Male 23
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.
0
Reply
Male 23
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.
0
Reply
Male 49
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!
0
Reply
Male 5,189
I remember when Mythbusters did an episode on this. They busted it but they did such a good fake job it didn`t help anything at all lol.
0
Reply
Male 105
Go Buzz!
0
Reply
Male 548
@fivezones

*bologna

we`ll start listening once you learn how to spell.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
this is from 2002
0
Reply
Male 394
"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.
0
Reply
Male 394
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,021
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
0
Reply
Male 840
Good one, Buzz.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
I`d keep my mouth shut for a mansion and a pension.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"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.
0
Reply
Male 430
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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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[/quote]

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?
0
Reply
Male 290
@almightybob1 Point taken, off to view the vids :-)
Thanks for the heads up.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Hammer and Feather experiment performed by the crew of Apollo 15, on the moon.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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. [/quote]

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.

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

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.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]For the sake of argument, I`ll just jump in and ask, why would `they` need to create a vacuum if `they` faked it?[/quote]
Because they performed the hammer and feather experiment, footage of which is easily available on Youtube. It requires a vacuum to work.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
This was fun. Its more likely it happened than not.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"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.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"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
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]For the sake of argument, I`ll just jump in and ask, why would `they` need to create a vacuum if `they` faked it?[/quote]

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.

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

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.
0
Reply
Male 290
@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
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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?[/quote]

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?
0
Reply
Male 24
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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]How do you know that? You`d be amazed at what millions of dollars and patriotic citizens can produce.[/quote]

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?

[quote]What was simpler? Faking it, or doing it?[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
I wanted to be an astronaut. Seems badass.

0
Reply
Male 4,014
"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.



0
Reply
Male 337
good for buzz aldrin
0
Reply
Male 1,678
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"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?
0
Reply
Male 495
"Who had ever seen someone walk on the moon? Who knows what it really looks like? No one has been since..."

Yes they have.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
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.
0
Reply
Male 394
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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Female 631
-_- ignorant people annoy me..
0
Reply
Male 4,014
I believe we did it.

I just would have faked it for cheaper.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
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...
0
Reply
Male 478
Buzz Aldrin just got 100 times awesomer.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@goaliejerry

Read Angillion`s post made 3:53:36 PM.
0
Reply
Male 495
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.
0
Reply
Male 36
lol 90% of conspiracy theories are constructed and held together by people who are bored. conspiracy theories = real life trolls. go gettem buzz!
0
Reply
Male 4,014
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
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.
0
Reply
Male 613
Go get im Buzz!


NASA will pick up your court costs.
0
Reply
Female 293
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....
0
Reply
Male 1,744
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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
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).
0
Reply
Male 1,452
WAR BUZZ ALDRIN
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@splurbyburbl

No it`s all made up by people who honestly have nothing better to do.
0
Reply
Male 394
Heh. All the conspiracy should go to an Astronautics 101 course, and then learn to STFU about the hoaxes.

Get a life. Really.
0
Reply
Male 76
that dude just got punched by a guythat went to the moon. he should be thankful. idiot
0
Reply
Male 2,796
-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?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
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).
0
Reply
Male 1,548
@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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 117
@tedgp there is a mythbuster episode on this watch it
0
Reply
Male 10,855
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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Actually angilion theres one you cant debunk.[/quote]

No, there isn`t.

[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 914
@tedgp

Every reason you just gave is bullsh*t and easily debunked.
0
Reply
Male 304
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...
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Hit him again Buzz!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]shadows[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
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.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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?[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 495
"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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

"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?
0
Reply
Male 339
@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?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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?[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]people get cancer and die from the radiation the sun gives off, through our atmosphere...[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
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.
0
Reply
Male 140
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.
0
Reply
Male 339
@pooptart:

wow good point, im glad you explained why im wrong there...
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]
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?[/quote]
alexander_xx, you are so f*cking stupid.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]IAB you got this off Cracked`s article today, for shame...[/quote]
IAB and Cracked are owned by the same company. You can`t steal from yourself.
0
Reply
Male 339
@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?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Well done Buzz. Some people deserve a punch in the face.
0
Reply
Male 1,793
Call him a coward.... He`s a hero...... Nice job, kick his ass...
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]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).[/quote]
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?
0
Reply
Male 928
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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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).
0
Reply
Male 2,034
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.
0
Reply
Male 80
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.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@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!).
0
Reply
Male 185
"alleged"? WTF is that poop?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Serves you right moron!
0
Reply
Male 364
Good one, Buzz!
0
Reply
Male 2,796
Took care of that problem the way Liberals wouldn`t... good man.
0
Reply
Male 120
Super Space Buzz punch FTW!
0
Reply
Male 339
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
0
Reply
Male 6,737
"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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Nice Punch Buzz!
0
Reply
Female 275
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."
0
Reply
Male 307
IAB you got this off Cracked`s article today, for shame...
0
Reply
Male 6
Sibrel is a weasel.
0
Reply
Male 491
Wait, what. The US put a man on the moon, when?
0
Reply
Male 25,417
Wow, i saw the moon landing on TV, had to be true!
0
Reply
Male 4,807
70 year old right hook.
for the win!!
0
Reply
Male 105
Fluck that Motherflucker Sibrel
0
Reply
Male 81
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.
0
Reply
Male 96
Yeah!! Go Buzz
0
Reply
Female 91
seen it
0
Reply
Male 159
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."
0
Reply
Male 249
id be pretty pissed if some idiot came up to me and said that my proudest moment never really happened too
0
Reply
Male 338
Serves that guy right.
0
Reply
Male 1,596
amendment: man gets his ass handed to him by buzz aldrin
0
Reply
Male 117
Yeah, that`s the way! Go for it, Buzzzzzzz!
0
Reply
Male 36
Nice one Buzz
0
Reply
Male 122
yea
0
Reply
Male 94
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,091
Wheres the rest??? That is so awesome!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Link: Man Confronts Buzz Aldrin [Rate Link] - The man in the thumbnail is Bart Sibrel. He confronts Aldrin over his alleged moon landing.
0
Reply