How many of u believe... that Man had landed in MOON???

well Neil Armstrong became muslim right?...............

I think the verse that the brother is referring to is the following:

O assembly of jinns and men! If you have power to pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, then pass (them)! But you will never be able to pass them, except with authority (from Allâh)! [Qur'an, 55:33]



But if we look at Ibn Katheer's commentary, he says regarding this verse:

meaning, `you will never be able to escape Allah's orders and decrees, because it encompasses you. You will never be able to avoid or avert His rule and judgement over you, you are surrounded by it wherever you may be.' This is also about the Gathering when the angels, comprising seven lines in every direction, will surround the creatures. None of the creatures will be able to escape on that Day,

[إِلاَّ بِسُلْطَـنٍ]

(except with authority) meaning, except with the commandment from Allah,

So as far as the obvious goes, this is not talking about landing on the moon. I think this has already been mentioned elsewhere on the forum.

Regarding the splitting of the moon, we do not need to look for cracks or fault lines to believe that this was true. There are numerous hadeeth which state that it clearly split in two, mentioning that a mountain could be seen between its two parts.

format_quote Originally Posted by A_Witness

Greetings to all.

I do not believe that man has actually landed on the moon. I believe this because although I am not a rocket scientist (as if that isn't obvious!) I understand that the radiation from what is known as the Van Allen Radiation Belt is too intense to allow for survival of a human to pass through it.

On the other hand, a human passing through it might come out the other end looking like a member of the Fantastic Four.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ya Mustafa

why do u think they spend nearly millions of dollars on space suits? ^^^

so that it seems like something special

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

Regarding the splitting of the moon, we do not need to look for cracks or fault lines to believe that this was true. There are numerous hadeeth which state that it clearly split in two, mentioning that a mountain could be seen between its two parts.

agreed akhi, just one question:
Did it appear to split or actually split?

Question:
Is it impossible to travel to the Moon, because of the Van Allen Belt?

From: Peter Wingerter
Grade: None given
City: None given State/Prov.: None given Country: None given
Area: Astronomy
Message ID Number: 958408099.As

Is there any truth to the rumor? Is it impossible to travel to the moon, because of the Van Allen Belt?

Peter Wingerter


Answer:
This is an especially interesting question, though maybe more about psychology and epistemology than about astronomy or physics. Nevertheless, the same question comes up again and again, in one form or another, so it really is very important.

It has a number of possible answers:


The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt quite quickly, so that in the short time they were exposed, the astronauts did not receive a dose of radiation considered dangerous, at least not compared to the inevitable other risks in the mission.
This is the straightforward, scientific answer. It is correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Source:

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

format_quote Originally Posted by A_Witness

Need to account for a couple of billion dollars? No problem! Just send another space probe to Venus. It burns up on or before impact leaving no trace. I’m sure the data they (say they) receive will make it all worth while! All the space propaganda broadcast through popular television programs here (“Star Trek” etc.) make all of us here in American Babylon feel all “warm and fuzzy”, while the majority of us kill our brain cells with beer or something stronger.

Honestly I do not know if a man landed on the moon or not and fact is I don't care. But I agree that the whole operation is complete waste of money.

Selam aleykum
This seems like an interesting discussion. I haven't read all of it so forgive me if I am repeating stuff that has already been said. Anyway. I'm not sure wheter this actually hapened or not, the footage that is supposed to function as proof raise a lot of unanswered questions indeed.

As for the counterquestions, let me hypothesyse on some of them.
Someone here suggested that it couldn't be a hoax because to many people should have to be in on it. However, how many people would actually have to know the truth? Let's hypothesise. Say that they didn't land on the moon but instead just circled around it. So they had the real astronauts circling the moon, and the stand-ins on earth making a nice picture. Who would have to be in on this? Well obviously the astronauts, the actors and the people who calculated and set the course for the rocket. How about the guys who made the landing gear and all of that stuff, and all the million other things that are related to this mission. Well there are multiple options. On some stuff they might have had bogus teams, they might have had genuine teams with guys who thought their research mattered but who fell for the hoax to, and then some stuff might not have been designed in the first place; and the number of people we believed to be involved is larger then the number of people who actually were involved. Be it as it may, in a govermental organisation, where they work on need to know basis, and each team has it's own jo and only a few people overlook it all and see the big picture I'd say it's defenetly possible.

Or how about the Russians following up. Well it is true that it's possible to pinpoint a location from three points, however, the further away the source is, the less accurate that technique becomes especially with radiowaves who have a long amplitude. See the calculations used are based on the assumptions that the waves follow a straight line, but they don't. They follow a wavy path. And the further away your source is, the bigger your error-margin becomes. So, all they had to do was send the video that was prerecorded up along with them and have them transmit that footage from when they were circulating. And even if the Russians were able to figure out that they weren't actually on the moon, but instead just around it, then I don't think they would have gone public with this for the following reasons:
1. They wouldn't be certain enough. They would probably think: "this cannot be a hoax"
2. They wouldn't have hard solid proof
3. They knew that the Americans would just laugh it off and say that it is either a malfunctioning of their measuringequipment or just an shamfull attempt of the Russians to "steal their thunder". And the Russians would hence still come out as looking inferior.

As for the van allen belt, it is an area around the earth created by the earth's magnetic field that pushes all the radiation in a certain place. Now certain areas of this belt have a high condensity of radiation. Hence the question, how could they pass that area, well it's true they only passed a small period of time, but that's not really important. the van allen belt is only special here because it's very dense on radiation at certain points. But the crew should have been exposed to that kind of radiation the whole time during that trip. Since that radiation is everywhere in space. Now I Imagen the craft took some of it down but on the moon where they were only protected by their suits this would become very troublesome.

Oh and to go off topic quickly to answer the questions. as for sattelites and van allen belt, we should in fact be thankfull to the belt, because this belt is what allows us to have sattelites, without that belt we wouldn't be able to have sattelites. See the belt is like two rings: an inner ring and an outer ring both with high condesety of radiation and an area inbetween that is kept free of radiation. here's a picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...ation_belt.png
And when I say free I really mean free, Nasa has exploded a atombomb up there to check what would happen and the radiation disapeared within a week, well it didn't disapear but got pushed to the innner and outer ring. Anyway, we keep our sattelites in that safe zone. that's how they are able to work in space. The ring protects them from radiation.

As for the heat on the moon, I think the official explenation was that it was at sunset or sunrise so the heat wasn't that big. However that in itself raises a whole list of new questions. For example, if the moon has no air and hence no atmosphere that would mean that sunrise and sunset doesn't happen so slowly and gradually as it does on earth. This explenation also doesn't add up with the shadows in the pictures who show us the sun although it must be close to the horizon must clearly be there.

No not at all, it's just, the pictures raise a lot of unanswered questions, and unanswered questions hav a tendency to bringh forth conspiracy theorys since that is the easyest imagenable answer.

I seen a documentary a few years back that debunked the conspiracy theories, I am sorry that I don't recall the name of it.

BTW Muzammil, cool sig. very festive in a Christmas kind of way.