On February 10 2011 15:52 Aurocaido wrote: Sorry all you die hard American patriots, but gongryong has a point. There is plenty of evidence out there supporting the claim that the lunar landing of 1969 was a hoax. All you really need to do is look a bit, its there. I find it especially funny how you criticize him for not providing sources and the sources you provide *The Gifted Ape* are all links to wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a legitimate acedemic source, if you are going to criticize please provide actual sources not wiki articles or biased private webpages.
Yeah. I'm not a die-hard American Patriot. I've done alot of research on it myself and most of it is lies or hypothosese which are ultimatly proven wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble.
As have I, and a good portion of it was pointed out to me by the numerous history professors I have had over the years who follow the belief that the lunar landing was staged. Sorry you have come no where close to bursting my perverbial "bubble."
On February 10 2011 14:55 Darpa wrote: I do believe that there is extensive accounts of marco polo's trip through China. The great wall itself being around at that time is a common misconception. The wall existed in sections being built throughout history. However the wall as it is today (one long wall) was never actually completed until the ming dynasty (around 1375 - about 75 years after marco polo travelled china) So its entirely possible he didnt see it.
As for the other suggestions, those are maybe just coincidence, but remember that China at that point was a very large country. Certain cultural practices (like binding of the feet) were not common practice among northern chinese. Which was where Marco Polo was generally have thought to adventure.
The only reason I know this is because of a course I took in University, so I genuinely believe marco polo did visit China.
As for the original question
The only thing I can think of that is accepted but probably didnt actually happen the way it was thought is based around famous people as opposed to events. I.e. General Custard was a hero, William wallace was a hero, Thermopalyae only had 300 greeks... ect.
One big one I've heard is that The civil war wasnt actually about slavery (this is a contentious one, but there are records of abraham lincon suggesting in his memoirs that he didnt want to free them, but was forced to because of a changing social structure and the slavery issue was just the scapegoat for consolidating power over the southern aristocrats.)
edit. For those who care, the armenian killings happened, almost half a million armenians were killed. Armenia is in the process of having the killings recognized as a "genocide" in the world criminal court and the United nations. (something which turkey obviously opposes)
Slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War. The rights of states was. Slavery was just used to justify what the Union did. South said, "State's rights!" North said: "No, federal government is more powerful!" South said, "No. We won't do what you want." North said: "Okay." Lincoln was elected. Tensions rose. South realized Lincoln wasn't a man to mess around with. Seceded. Fort Sumter attacked, and the war in which brother against brother began. Lincoln freed the slaves in the South during the war (not the North, mind you) to gain more support. Amendment added in after war. Years and years of Northern intolerance towards the South, Tensions stayed strong for awhile.
The telling quote: "In what later became known as the Cornerstone Speech, C.S. Vice President Alexander Stephens declared that the "cornerstone" of the new government "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth"." (Emphasis mine) That was the Vice President of the Confederacy!
Edit: vv this goes to you too, what you are saying is totally false.
It was and it wasn't. That's just one speech in which it was highlighted, but the South's primary reasons were economic and social. Why did those economic and social problems arise? Because of slavery. If it were just about States' rights, then the South would've seceded when Andrew Jackson threatened to hang Calhoun.
On the Civil War note, the Battle of Gettysburg was actually a fairly unimportant, non-decisive battle. Had the South won, nothing would have changed. They might've been closer to DC, but they didn't have the forces or supply chain to make that push, and they almost certainly would've had to retreat in order to regather their forces.
On February 10 2011 16:08 DyEnasTy wrote: My boss actually said something really odd to me a couple months back. He said that schools were not teaching kids about the holocaust or something like that.
Can anyone confirm that people are trying to weed out history like that to the new generation? Or is that just BS.
In Florida public schools, social studies teachers of EVERY type are required to spend at least 3 days teaching about the Holocaust each year, at a minimum. Even in classes where we focused on Government or ancient culture, we had a week about the Holocaust.
Much of anything is debatable. The version you learn in primary school simply serves the purpose of preparing you for society by giving you a common narrative with the people around you. The deeper you go down the rabbit hole, the more uncertain it becomes.
On February 10 2011 15:52 Aurocaido wrote: Sorry all you die hard American patriots, but gongryong has a point. There is plenty of evidence out there supporting the claim that the lunar landing of 1969 was a hoax. All you really need to do is look a bit, its there. I find it especially funny how you criticize him for not providing sources and the sources you provide *The Gifted Ape* are all links to wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a legitimate acedemic source, if you are going to criticize please provide actual sources not wiki articles or biased private webpages.
Yeah. I'm not a die-hard American Patriot. I've done alot of research on it myself and most of it is lies or hypothosese which are ultimatly proven wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble.
As have I, and a good portion of it was pointed out to me by the numerous history professors I have had over the years who follow the belief that the lunar landing was staged. Sorry you have come no where close to bursting my perverbial "bubble."
funny i didn't realize that nasa was ran by history professors.
And all you have if belief the only counter evidence you have is wildly inaccurate claims to how physics works based off footage given to the public. + ignoring anything else like the collection of moon rocks and the placement of the positioning mirrors to measure the distance to the moon. you cannot dismiss evidence based off you don't like it. I can call you a turtle i can look up human in an encyclopedia and find out your a man but what the fuck does it know you're a turtle. If you feel like shitting on the American space program, complain how complacency of routine space flight cost the lives of those on-board Columbia and Challenger
I'm no civil war expert but from memory the north only abolished slavery in 1863? from my understanding the cause of the civil war was states rights but history is written by the winners.
On February 10 2011 15:52 Aurocaido wrote: Sorry all you die hard American patriots, but gongryong has a point. There is plenty of evidence out there supporting the claim that the lunar landing of 1969 was a hoax. All you really need to do is look a bit, its there. I find it especially funny how you criticize him for not providing sources and the sources you provide *The Gifted Ape* are all links to wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a legitimate acedemic source, if you are going to criticize please provide actual sources not wiki articles or biased private webpages.
Yeah. I'm not a die-hard American Patriot. I've done alot of research on it myself and most of it is lies or hypothosese which are ultimatly proven wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble.
As have I, and a good portion of it was pointed out to me by the numerous history professors I have had over the years who follow the belief that the lunar landing was staged. Sorry you have come no where close to bursting my perverbial "bubble."
The fact that Historians are telling you about this hoax is rather nice. But I guess they don't know much about physics, they may not have understood something and so passed it off as a hoax. Maybe like the flag on the moon.
But I cannot change your belief you can follow that belief if you want, but until I've seen any evidence that is at all recognisable as proof of a hoax'd Lunar Landing, I shall happily know that it wasn't staged and the Lunar Landing happened.
On February 10 2011 16:08 DyEnasTy wrote: My boss actually said something really odd to me a couple months back. He said that schools were not teaching kids about the holocaust or something like that.
Can anyone confirm that people are trying to weed out history like that to the new generation? Or is that just BS.
On February 10 2011 15:52 Aurocaido wrote: Sorry all you die hard American patriots, but gongryong has a point. There is plenty of evidence out there supporting the claim that the lunar landing of 1969 was a hoax. All you really need to do is look a bit, its there. I find it especially funny how you criticize him for not providing sources and the sources you provide *The Gifted Ape* are all links to wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a legitimate acedemic source, if you are going to criticize please provide actual sources not wiki articles or biased private webpages.
Yeah. I'm not a die-hard American Patriot. I've done alot of research on it myself and most of it is lies or hypothosese which are ultimatly proven wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble.
As have I, and a good portion of it was pointed out to me by the numerous history professors I have had over the years who follow the belief that the lunar landing was staged. Sorry you have come no where close to bursting my perverbial "bubble."
funny i didn't realize that nasa was ran by history professors.
On February 10 2011 15:52 Aurocaido wrote: Sorry all you die hard American patriots, but gongryong has a point. There is plenty of evidence out there supporting the claim that the lunar landing of 1969 was a hoax. All you really need to do is look a bit, its there. I find it especially funny how you criticize him for not providing sources and the sources you provide *The Gifted Ape* are all links to wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a legitimate acedemic source, if you are going to criticize please provide actual sources not wiki articles or biased private webpages.
Yeah. I'm not a die-hard American Patriot. I've done alot of research on it myself and most of it is lies or hypothosese which are ultimatly proven wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble.
As have I, and a good portion of it was pointed out to me by the numerous history professors I have had over the years who follow the belief that the lunar landing was staged. Sorry you have come no where close to bursting my perverbial "bubble."
funny i didn't realize that nasa was ran by history professors.
Also he has some pretty bad professors it seems.
well if his professor said it, it's gotta be 100% true right??
Also as far as moon landing hoax. You would imagine that Soviets would jump on this train, yet we in the communist block were always taught that Americans landed on the moon in 1969, of course the importance was downplayed, but still EDIT: Ah, it seems they actually pointed this out in the video posted.
apparently the Scandanavians got there first in the 12th-13th century, again the evidence is very sketchy, but they made it to greenland and there is some evidence that suggests they carried on across the pond.
Also... we went to the moon, we just did. There is no way in hell that they could have staged it and kept it secret for this long. More over both the UK and USSR independently verified that the signal was coming from the moon. The actual signal of the landing was re-broadcast to the world from Jodrel bank in the UK, they wouldn't lie for the US government and nor would the Russians. Literally thousands of people were involved and you just can't get that many people to keep a secret that big.
Not to mention that they left reflectors on the moon that scientists still use for experiments, I've been to an observatory and bounced a lazer off the reflectors on the moon PERSONALLY, so i know for a fact that we've been there.... i've seen the proof.
On February 10 2011 16:29 MayorITC wrote: It was widely accepted that the earth was spherical during Columbus' era.
The reason people didn't sail west to reach Asia was because they believed the distance was too far (and they were right).
Also, I heard something about Columbus's decision to sail West was due to some distance miscalculation by him. Maybe if he was better at algebra, he never would have sailed West.
The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment is a set of reflectors placed on the moon that ANYONE can use to figure the exact range from the earth to the moon. If it is there I ask how did it get there if we did not land on the moon.
You criticize me for citing wikipedia, yet he has posted 0 sources as to any concrete proof that we didn't land on the moon, he just said google it. And you question my sources, rofl.
also : http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html the Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter, a satellite orbiting the moon right now has imaged the leftover objects we have left on the moon, you can even make out the path that the astronauts walked, still visible cause there is no wind on the moon.
"No Stars Are Visible theory"
The Apollo astronauts all landed on the day side of the moon, and all the videos they shot from orbit were over the day side, so the exposure settings were all for daylight. Set your camera to 1/125 at f/8 (a setting typical of the slower films in use in 1969). Aim it at the night sky and shoot pictures. Tell me how many stars you see. Aim your camcorder at the sky and see how many stars you can film.
Even with the eye you'd have difficulty seeing stars from the daytime lunar surface unless you stood in a shadow and shielded yourself from any light reflected from the ground, for the same reason you can't see stars from a brightly lit parking lot at night.
ball is in your court, provide one piece of evidence.
Moon hoax always lights people up. Think about this. Does it not surprise you that most of the "evidence" against moon hoax are from NASA and US based publication, US university journals, etc, including ALL of the links you provided? I tell you this, it is a surely a hot topic and I for one ave not made up my mind on it one way or the other. History is about hegemony. And governments tend to do anything to protect secrets. Question, only when did we know that about radio waves as a public commodity? Only after the military had the technology to completely control its transmission and interception, that is 20 years after it was first used. Why is that? Because there is a lot at stake of the information being out in the open that could harm American interests. Like I said, I still have a lot to read before I conclude it is a hoax or not. But saying for sure that it is not is a little premature, if only because there are some information that we dont have access to.
apparently the Scandanavians got there first in the 12th-13th century, again the evidence is very sketchy, but they made it to greenland and there is some evidence that suggests they carried on across the pond.
RuneStone with some old viking writing on it found in minnesota. As well there are multiple sites on the east coast that could prove someone other that the native americans were here long before columbus.
The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment is a set of reflectors placed on the moon that ANYONE can use to figure the exact range from the earth to the moon. If it is there I ask how did it get there if we did not land on the moon.
You criticize me for citing wikipedia, yet he has posted 0 sources as to any concrete proof that we didn't land on the moon, he just said google it. And you question my sources, rofl.
also : http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html the Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter, a satellite orbiting the moon right now has imaged the leftover objects we have left on the moon, you can even make out the path that the astronauts walked, still visible cause there is no wind on the moon.
"No Stars Are Visible theory"
The Apollo astronauts all landed on the day side of the moon, and all the videos they shot from orbit were over the day side, so the exposure settings were all for daylight. Set your camera to 1/125 at f/8 (a setting typical of the slower films in use in 1969). Aim it at the night sky and shoot pictures. Tell me how many stars you see. Aim your camcorder at the sky and see how many stars you can film.
Even with the eye you'd have difficulty seeing stars from the daytime lunar surface unless you stood in a shadow and shielded yourself from any light reflected from the ground, for the same reason you can't see stars from a brightly lit parking lot at night.
ball is in your court, provide one piece of evidence.
Moon hoax always lights people up. Think about this. Does it not surprise you that most of the "evidence" against moon hoax are from NASA and US based publication, US university journals, etc, including ALL of the links you provided? I tell you this, it is a surely a hot topic and I for one ave not made up my mind on it one way or the other. History is about hegemony. And governments tend to do anything to protect secrets. Question, only when did we know that about radio waves as a public commodity? Only after the military had the technology to completely control its transmission and interception, that is 20 years after it was first used. Why is that? Because there is a lot at stake of the information being out in the open that could harm American interests. Like I said, I still have a lot to read before I conclude it is a hoax or not. But saying for sure that it is not is a little premature, if only because there are some information that we dont have access to.
Why yes it makes perfect sense that it comes from nasa, as they are the ones who acutally did the landing. If it was Ford or General mills providing the proof i would be very skeptical. I reiterate my first point, the Lunar Laser Ranging experiement, you or I or anyone can and do STILL USE IT, It's still there. Multiple universities ALL AROUND THE WORLD, use it every day to measure the distance from the earth to the moon.
The civil war was very much about slavery, to deny that is baffling. States rights was also a huge concern; it was mostly slavery/tariffs that lead the south to support state rights so vehemently.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2001/02/23/ast23feb_2_resources/flagwaving_med.jpg)
