When I was much younger I used to believe that there are far more important things women can do than having children. I now think raising happy, healthy and well balanced children is one of the most worthwhile and vital jobs in the world.
Have you ever believed something that turned out to be wrong?
by slimboyfat 32 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
slimboyfat7 hours ago: Rainbow Troll that's an interesting list of beliefs. Why do you think the moon landing never happened?
It did not come to me easily. For most of my life I believed that the Apollo mission was one of the few American achievements that I could feel legitimately and unambivalently proud of (the other being the Internet). I was aware of moon-landing skeptics for quite some time before I began my investigations, but I did not bother reading their arguments; I had worthier topics to invest my time in.
What initially sparked my interest was an Apollo photo in which the earth is shown as a bright blue ball against the airless black lunar sky. I was immediately taken aback by its apparent size. We all know that the earth is over three times larger than the moon, but in this photo it took up no more of the sky than a full moon does here on earth even at its perigee! Early into my research I discovered that this anomaly could actually be accounted for if the photo were shot with a wide angled lense. Even so, this little puzzle provoked a lot of good questions.
I first had to ask myself why we went to the moon. Clearly it wasn't out of curiosity or because prez Kennedy thought Luna was made of gold. We did it for one reason: to one-up the Soviets. Not only was Sputnik embarrassing, it set a dangerous precedent. If Communist Russia were able to dominate earth's orbit, they would have a serious tactical advantage that would endanger the U.S.A. and other free-market countries around the world. We didn't really have a choice. Whether or not reaching the moon was possible, it had to be done. And even if it were possible, wouldn't a fake moon landing be just as effective (for the purpose of propaganda) as a real one? Why spend millions of dollars and endanger the lives of American astronauts when faking it would be safe, cheap and just as effective? I'm aware that the above argument proves nothing; but I'm not finished yet.
The next question is much more troubling: why haven't we returned? Yes, there were other trips to the moon after Apollo 11, but they were really just reruns of the original mission. Why haven't we been to the moon since 1972? Why haven't we established permanent colonies there and large scale industry? Don't tell me it wouldn't be profitable. If the moon rocks that were bought back are representative, the moon is loaded with valuable mineral resources including large deposits of silicon, iron, aluminum, magnesium, titanium, chromium and manganese. Energy could be harvested from the sun using solar collectors at the moon's poles. Raw materials, even water (in the form of ice; and also hydrogen trapped in carbonaceous chondrites) and oxygen (in the form of oxides) are surprisingly plentiful on the moon. Very little would actually have to be brought from the earth in order to establish the lunar infrastructure; and once it got going, it would be entirely self-supporting.
And resources aside, there are numerous industrial processes which would we incredibly cheap and safe on the airless, low gravity environment of the moon. Nuclear power plants could be built and their energy beamed to earth via microwaves without anyone down here ever having to worry about a meltdown or hazardous radioactive byproducts.
The scientific research that could be conducted is also immense: there is plenty of room up there for particle accelerators much larger, and thus much more productive, than CERN. A planetoid with no intervening atmosphere is perfect for astronomers; telescopes could be constructed that would dwarf anything we have on earth. Finally, due to its low gravity, the moon would be a perfect jumping off point for both manned and unmanned missions further into the Sol system. Overcoming earth's gravity is not only a danger to astronauts, it is extremely expensive. Every ounce counts. Not so on the moon.
Taking the above into consideration I ask again: why hasn't any major government or corporation set up permanent colonies on the moon or even gone there recently? They can certainly afford it and it would be immensely profitable beyond anyone's imagination; so what's stopping them? I can think of only two explanations:
1. Some secret organization is deliberately trying to retard human progress. Anyone who wants to go to the moon is discretely visited by a representative of this shadowy conspiracy and threatened with dire consequences should they go anywhere near the moon. Not very likely in my opinion, but it could be true.
2. There is a natural barrier. Perhaps the van allen belt of radiation is just too intense for any proposed spacecraft to protect its occupants from. Lead is a very dense material, but also very heavy. It could be that sending a craft with a lead hull thick enough to protect astronauts from van allen radiation is just too expensive at the moment. I must admit that this too, while more plausible than the latter hypothesis, also seems unlikely. Still, I put it out there.
Another issue is the incredible number of errors and inconsistencies that can be found if one combs through the photographic records of the Apollo missions. They are far too numerous to list here, but I encourage anyone who is interested to study this website. The author has spent a great deal of time not only cataloging NASA's mistakes, but debunking the bad arguments of more amateur moon landing skeptics (like my own 'the moon is too small' argument).
In any case, no matter the reason why, it seems apparent to me that no human being has ever set foot on the moon. I hasten to add, however, that nothing I have said could possibly undermine our basic view of the universe. Just because NASA has been dishonest about its achievements concerning extraterrestrial exploration does not mean that the earth is flat or that our sphere is the center of the universe. It does not refute the existence of other stars, planets and galaxies. It does not even refute the big bang. All of these things can be independently verified using telescopes, spectroscopy, and simple mathematics. But it DOES bring into question some more recent 'discoveries'. If the moon rocks are just regular stones, we really can't know for sure what types of mineral resources might exist on the moon. We can't know for certain whether or not there is life on Mars. For me, it has been an interesting journey, but it has not overturned my fundamental worldview. NASA lied about the moon and, most likely, Mars too; but those worlds are still out there waiting to be explored by our intrepid race.
-
cofty
All those astronauts, engineers, specialists, astronomers scientists, mathematicians, navy personnel etc and in all those decades not one of them broke ranks. Literally thousands of the most intelligent and independently minded people in modern history.
The depth of conspiracy to maintain the lie about our journey to the moon would be far far more unlikely than the simple verifiable fact that we really did go there.
-
bohm
If man did not land on the moon, when was the lunar module placed on the moon?
http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11-landing-site-moon-photo.html
-
Simon
I used to believe that a phone didn't need to be charged up every day.
-
Simon
The depth of conspiracy to maintain the lie about our journey to the moon would be far far more unlikely than the simple verifiable fact that we really did go there
Even more amazing, the Russians would also be complicit in it - yes, the people desperate to show up the US as failures would, for some reason, just not use the fact that the landings were fake to embarrass the US.
-
Rainbow_Troll
cofty: All those astronauts, engineers, specialists, astronomers scientists, mathematicians, navy personnel etc and in all those decades not one of them broke ranks
One word: compartmentalization. Most of the people involved in Apollo were sitting at consoles or helped design and build the equipment. They weren't actually on the moon. Only the astronauts themselves and a few others would have to know the truth and they could easily be silenced with threats directed at them and their families, as well as the shame of having knowingly participated in the biggest hoax in human history.
Bohm: If man did not land on the moon, when was the lunar module placed on the moon?
That photo was taken by NASA. Also, I'm not disputing the unmanned missions. Objects could have been sent to the moon. My issue is with the moon landings.
Simon: Even more amazing, the Russians would also be complicit in it - yes, the people desperate to show up the US as failures would, for some reason, just not use the fact that the landings were fake to embarrass the US
Not complicit, just gullible.
-
bohm
That photo was taken by NASA. Also, I'm not disputing the unmanned missions. Objects could have been sent to the moon. My issue is with the moon landings.
...there are also other telescopes that have taken pictures of the lander.
I am confused now. You claim that NASA flew the lunar lander onto the moon, left a rover on the moon, left mirrors that can be measured to exist by laser on the moon, but they just didn't include a human in the lander?
In other words, Is the lander on the moon or not? (pictures would suggest it is), and if so, when did it get there?
-
Rainbow_Troll
Bohm: ...there are also other telescopes that have taken pictures of the lander.
I am confused now. You claim that NASA flew the lunar lander onto the moon, left a rover on the moon, left mirrors that can be measured to exist by laser on the moon, but they just didn't include a human in the lander?
In other words, Is the lander on the moon or not? (pictures would suggest it is), and if so, when did it get there?The lander could be on the moon as well as other man made objects. It is clearly possible to launch things into space and direct them to very specific coordinates (how else could satellites be explained?). Even the Mars rover could be for real (though given NASA's duplicity, who knows?) When did they get there? I am not sure. I would have to research the subject.
The only thing that I am disputing is manned missions to the moon - not because such a thing would be impossible - but for the reasons I outlined in my former post.