Moon landings

[Hamilton Saint]

Is there any reason why I've never seen any modern day photos of the moon landing sites?

 

Apollo 11 landing site - photographed this year.

 

Photo at top of page - click to enlarge it.

 

http://www.space.com/17330-neil-armstrong-death-moon-landing-site-preservation.html

[dvaughanwilliams]

I'll take your "nature of light coloured rock" and raise this one.

 

Nature of light coloured astronauts?

 

[video=youtube_share;OEhHTgBsUOc]http://youtu.be/OEhHTgBsUOc

 

It's all explained in the MythBusters videos posted already. Have you never noticed how bright the moon is in the night sky?

[pap]

Apollo 11 landing site - photographed this year.

 

Photo at top of page - click to enlarge it.

 

http://www.space.com/17330-neil-armstrong-death-moon-landing-site-preservation.html

 

Or alternatively, photo-shopped this year.

 

The detail is shocking.

[Hamilton Saint]

Or alternatively, photo-shopped this year.

 

The detail is shocking.

 

Yes, choose the alternative ... if it turns your crank.

 

Detail? Probably not photographed from the top of a ladder, or the top of a tree. My guess is that it was photographed from a satellite in orbit - many kilometers above the surface.

[pap]

It's all explained in the MythBusters videos posted already. Have you never noticed how bright the moon is in the night sky?

 

Title of vid: Did Mythbusters get it wrong.

Last part of very short vid: proving Mythbusters wrong

 

Ever wonder why you'd have a program like Mythbusters and call it Mythbusters. Doesn't sound like the format had got a lot of editorial independence

[trousers]

Yes, choose the alternative ... if it turns your crank.

 

Detail? Probably not photographed from the top of a ladder, or the top of a tree. My guess is that it was photographed from a satellite in orbit - many kilometers above the surface.

 

I thought we had big super dooper telephoto lens cameras these days that can take detailed photos of galaxies millions of light years away? Surely a close up of each landing site a few miles away isn't beyond modern technology these days?

[Hamilton Saint]

I thought we had big super dooper telephoto lens cameras these days that can take detailed photos of galaxies millions of light years away? Surely a close up of each landing site a few miles away isn't beyond modern technology these days?

 

Like the Hubble Telescope, you mean?

 

Maybe if you contact whomever is in control of it, you can get them to do a photo of the Apollo landing sites? Especially if you tell them that you're a conspiracy theorist!

 

Then again, maybe the Hubble telescope is just too close to the Moon?

[trousers]

Like the Hubble Telescope, you mean?

 

Maybe if you contact whomever is in control of it, you can get them to do a photo of the Apollo landing sites? Especially if you tell them that you're a conspiracy theorist!

 

Then again, maybe the Hubble telescope is just too close to the Moon?

 

Yeah, Hubble...that's the baby...

[pap]

Yes, choose the alternative ... if it turns your crank.

 

Detail? Probably not photographed from the top of a ladder, or the top of a tree. My guess is that it was photographed from a satellite in orbit - many kilometers above the surface.

 

Current observation satellites can capture detail on Earth at about 0.41m per pixel. They generally sit in LEO ( defined as at least 320km up ), a much higher orbit than the LRO's present lunar orbit. The LRO's lunar orbit is at most 216 km. It is presently over the lunar poles around 50km up.

 

So why is that image so crap, exactly?

[Bearsy]

Current observation satellites can capture detail on Earth at about 0.41m per pixel.

 

Answering ur own question there homes. My whole knob wouldn't fill a pixel!

[The Kraken]

Current observation satellites can capture detail on Earth at about 0.41m per pixel. They generally sit in LEO ( defined as at least 320km up ), a much higher orbit than the LRO's present lunar orbit. The LRO's lunar orbit is at most 216 km. It is presently over the lunar poles around 50km up.

 

So why is that image so crap, exactly?

 

[pap]

 

I'm not saying that they didn't go to the moon.

 

But pretending to go to the moon is a lot easier

[dvaughanwilliams]

Title of vid: Did Mythbusters get it wrong.

Last part of very short vid: proving Mythbusters wrong

 

Ever wonder why you'd have a program like Mythbusters and call it Mythbusters. Doesn't sound like the format had got a lot of editorial independence

 

I found the video to be unconvincing and low on facts or proof. All it had were leading questions.

 

The problem I have with all conspiracy theories is the asymmetry in testing the evidence. In my view the conspiracy has as many inconsistencies as the official version.

 

Was there a rocket? I assume that you agree that there was and that this element wasn't faked.

 

Where did it go? If there was a rocket and it did leave the atmosphere, why would they not attempt to go to the moon? When did they discover that they couldn't get to the moon? They must have filmed the fake shots before the launch as there are films of the crew in space or do you think that they were faked too? Why couldn't they go to the moon?

 

Why would the scientists and technicians have agreed to the plan, rather than actually make the attempt, especially given the patriotic symbolism of the space race?

 

How much of the mission is fact and how much fiction? If some of the mission were true, then NASA would have needed 2 control rooms, one for the fake stuff and one for the real. How did they keep the real stuff hidden?

 

Faking it seems utterly illogical and fraught with danger.

[buctootim]

Its not just the multiple light sources, its the whole perspective of the astronauts on the lunar surface which looks unconvincing.

 

[Hamilton Saint]

Its not just the multiple light sources, its the whole perspective of the astronauts on the lunar surface which looks unconvincing.

 

 

Very good!

[pap]

The video was about as bare bones as it gets. All it needs to be to make its point.

 

Also, it's probably worth pointing out that in any given conspiracy, there's no one version of events that people reach a consensus on. There are elements that people can find common cause on; the rocket is a great example. Pretty much everyone agrees they went up. Some people dispute anyone being on them when they did, but then you've also got other documentary evidence from the pro-conspiracy lobby from inside the spacecraft, where it's evident they are trying to make the Earth look farther away than it is.

 

Why would scientists and technicians agree to the plan? Well, how many of them actually had to know? If this was the direction that the wind was blowing, how many of them would speak up if they did? Is it not a little puzzling that Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, with bragging rights for eternity, basically kept schtum about his experiences his whole life?

 

You're using patriotic symbolism as a reason why a hoax is impossible, yet the self-same notion can be used to justify a massive lie. Remember what was at stake here; massive clash of ideologies, fresh from the almost hot war in Cuba and the Kennedy assassination. The Russians were miles ahead of the US in the early 1960s, yet in less than a decade, the US was able to achieve a feat that no nation has managed before or since.

 

From a propaganda perspective, it's utterly brilliant. If it is a hoax, the US have basically pulled the "yeah, I have ****ged a girl. It was a French girl I met on a holiday with my parents!". No-one is really in a position to disprove it, especially if there's a fair bit of photographic evidence. You're left with lingering doubts and a sense of "how the f**k did that happen?".

Edited 11 December, 2012 by pap
De-bearsy-fication on weres

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I quite like people who ask awkward questions - awkward questions being the only ones worth asking methinks. But like everything else in life you can take it too far. As already mentioned, scientists do routinely measure the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon by bouncing a laser beam off a reflector one of the Apollo missions left on the Lunar surface.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment

 

The so called 'fluttering flag' was merely a inadvertent vibration imparted into the flagpole that did not dissipate naturally (as it would on Earth) due to the Moons low gravity. Apparent anomalies in light and shadow sources observed on published Apollo photography can be readily explained by those who properly understand the specialist film/camera's employed and the highly unusual lunar photographic conditions pertaining. For the record, independent observers on earth also confirmed that radio wave transmissions apparently broadcast from the moon did indeed have a true Lunar origin.

 

Now a reasonable person might conclude that all this was pretty solid evidence (among a mountain of other solid evidence) that these silly theories are without foundation in fact and that man has indeed visited the Moon. It will make no difference however because conspiracy theorists with put forward some (apparently plausible) explanation as to why, and how, this evidence too has been falsified. It is in the nature of conspiracy theories that facts that do not fit a preconceived notion held must be dismissed, however solid the evidence actually is, because the faithful regard themselves as 'keepers of the truth' and they will tolerate no opposition. In a way beliefs of this nature closely resemble religion, in a deeply cynical age like this, they may even one day supersede traditional religion.

 

The truth (well my truth anyway) is that the Apollo programme is perhaps the finest bloody effort Mankind has ever managed. When we stoop so low as to question the magnificent group of people who made this possible, then not only do we insult them, we also damage ourselves.

Edited 11 December, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[pap]

I quite like people who ask awkward questions - awkward questions being the only ones worth asking methinks. But like everything else you can go too far. I understand that scientists routinely measure the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon by bouncing a laser beam off a reflector one of the Apollo missions left on the surface.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment

 

Now a reasonable person might conclude that that was pretty solid evidence (among a mountain of other solid evidence) that man has indeed visited the Moon. It will make no difference however because conspiracy theorists with put forward some apparently plausible explanation as to why, and how, this evidence too has been falsified. It is in the nature of conspiracy theories that facts that do not fit a preconceived notion held must be dismissed, however solid the evidence actually is because the faithful will tolerate no opposition. In a way beliefs of this nature closely resemble religion. In a deeply cynical age they may even serve as the replacement of religion.

 

The truth (well my truth anyway) is that the Apollo programme is perhaps the finest bloody collective effort Mankind has ever managed - what a shame some choose to question it.

 

The retroreflectors are your proof then, Charlie? They could not have got to the moon in any other way? If this link is supposed to be the big b!tching smackdown you hope it to be, you're essentially saying that the retro reflectors are proof of human visitation.

 

I disagree.

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume we actually want to fake a moon landing and want to use retroreflectors as the basis of our physical proof.

 

Logically, the best plan would be to get the retroreflectors there ahead of time on an unmanned mission. You get as many goes as you like. Once successful, pinpoint the location of your retroreflector, then structure the entire mission around hitting that spot.

 

"Hey wow, we're here! We've bunged down retroreflectors! There's the proof! Fans of awkward questions will be totally fooled in 2012."

 

It's a question of perspective. I get why you're offended. You are proud of your species' achievement. I can understand that; I'd like to be proud of that too. Well another achievement is the ability to think critically, to question what we are told. When assessing the veracity of something in dispute, our normal process is to examine evidence on both sides.

 

You have presented these retroreflectors as irrefutable proof that man has visited the moon. I've posited a scenario that pretty much guarantees success on your burden of proof. Yep, it's strawman as f**k, but it doesn't require a bloke on the moon.

[the stain]

If there was no moon landing there wouldn't be any star trek or star wars. Explain that.

[pap]

If there was no moon landing there wouldn't be any star trek or star wars. Explain that.

 

A-ha! 2001 was released before the moon landings.

 

Not only that, but Star Wars happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

 

Not only that, but Star Trek continuity is well messed up and cannot be relied on. According to them, the 1990s were all about the Eugenics Wars and Khan Noonian Singh taking over a large part of the planet, yet I largely remember Pearl Jam, Pulp and Playstation.

[the stain]

According to them, the 1990s were all about the Eugenics Wars and Khan Noonian Singh taking over a large part of the planet, yet I largely remember Pearl Jam, Pulp and Playstation.

 

Those things did happen. Maybe you should open your mind a little, or maybe someone or something has wiped your memories?

[pap]

Those things did happen. Maybe you should open your mind a little, or maybe someone or something has wiped your memories?

 

FFS, stainster - let's do one conspiracy at a time, shall we?

[Horley CTFC Saint]

That's fair enough, I suppose. The pro-conspiracy view's main points are:-

 

Big problems with the photography from the lunar surface (ton of evidence that different light sources have been used). The debunkers usually point out individual shots that can sort of be explained on the fringes of photography, but what they address is a tiny fraction.

 

Effect of Van Allen radiation belt on humans going to the moon and/or equipment passing through it. This is another big problem; is it technically feasible? I'm real patchy on this so will defer to superior scientific knowledge.

 

No stars.

 

Flapping flags on an airless moon.

 

Technology has moved on 40 years. No one has managed it since. The central premise of the conspiracy theory is that the Apollo program was fake. You can't really include later missions.

 

Blueprints for massively expensive space equipment "missing".

 

It's odd. NASA has made repeated concerted efforts to establish the veracity of its claims, from the LRO to the reflectors, etc. The funny thing is that they're just providing more ammo to the pro-conspiracy crowd. Recently released stuff gets just as much analysis as the original shots; plenty of new discrepancies are emerging.

 

The Yanks didn't think they could do it in the early 1960s, but Lyndon Johnson convinced Kennedy to go for it; that this was a way to establish world leadership in the height of the Cold War.

 

I do find the subject matter interesting.

I luv the picture of the astronaut who's shadow doesn't connect with his body that the conspiracists regularly point to - I actually remember the guy jumping when the picture was being taken - there's video of it all happening somewhere

 

 

Current thinking is that there is a 30% chance of getting terminal cancer as a result of a trip to Mars. Given how far Mars is from Earth compared to the Moon it suggests that the radiation issue is blown out of all proportion. As far as I am aware no serious scientist has disputed the Moon landings and for me the conspiracists are just out for a fast buck

 

Technology has indeed moved on 40 years but it has only been relatively recently that it has been thought possible that there are significant amounts of water to be found trapped in the lunar poles that could be used to produce rocket propellant - hydrogen and oxygen you see. That makes the Moon a bit more interesting than in the 1970s and could result in renewed exploration at some time in the foreseeable future. Also with the growth in robotics there is less need for human exploration which is both more costly and more hazardous in terms of human life - I think it is not surprising that there is less astronaut based space exporation nowadays for that fact alone.

 

There are quite a few pictures taken by satellites of various of the Moon landing sites - not sure they're particularly well publicised but are easily found if you search the Internet

[Halo Stickman]

A-ha! 2001 was released before the moon landings.

 

That’s because Stanley Kubrick couldn’t work on both projects at once!

[Horley CTFC Saint]

And why would they fake the moon landings six times?

 

Wasn't once enough?

 

 

Not to mention the 3 or was it 4 planned 'faked landings' they cancelledafter Apollo 17

[pap]

Not to mention the 3 or was it 4 planned 'faked landings' they cancelledafter Apollo 17

 

I don't see much of you Horley, and don't want to run a man down, but you have two posts left to make a valid point.

 

The premise of this thread is that the Apollo landings were faked. You are arguing that because missions after Apollo 17 were cancelled, the missions themselves can't have been faked. What happens to your line of reasoning if they were all faked, and they just couldn't be arsed faking them anymore?

[Horley CTFC Saint]

I don't see much of you Horley, and don't want to run a man down, but you have two posts left to make a valid point.

 

The premise of this thread is that the Apollo landings were faked. You are arguing that because missions after Apollo 17 were cancelled, the missions themselves can't have been faked. What happens to your line of reasoning if they were all faked, and they just couldn't be arsed faking them anymore?

You missed my earlier post mate.

 

Really as someone who lived through the Apollo era the only surprising thing about it to me is that only three astronauts White, Chaffee and Grissom died in the whole project - this conspiracy thing is an unwarranted stain on the memory of those guys.

 

...oh and why just because I can only post 3 times a day does it make the conspiracy theories any more valid? Thats all for today folks.........

[Halo Stickman]

Leaving aside Armstrong and Aldrin, can anybody remember the names of the other 10 astronauts to walk on the moon? I reckon one of these – not to mention the countless others that would have been involved in any conspiracy – would have sold their story and played the lead role in Conspiracy the movie by now.

 

They were all Americans, afterall

[pap]

I luv the picture of the astronaut who's shadow doesn't connect with his body that the conspiracists regularly point to - I actually remember the guy jumping when the picture was being taken - there's video of it all happening somewhere

 

 

Current thinking is that there is a 30% chance of getting terminal cancer as a result of a trip to Mars. Given how far Mars is from Earth compared to the Moon it suggests that the radiation issue is blown out of all proportion. As far as I am aware no serious scientist has disputed the Moon landings and for me the conspiracists are just out for a fast buck

 

Technology has indeed moved on 40 years but it has only been relatively recently that it has been thought possible that there are significant amounts of water to be found trapped in the lunar poles that could be used to produce rocket propellant - hydrogen and oxygen you see. That makes the Moon a bit more interesting than in the 1970s and could result in renewed exploration at some time in the foreseeable future. Also with the growth in robotics there is less need for human exploration which is both more costly and more hazardous in terms of human life - I think it is not surprising that there is less astronaut based space exporation nowadays for that fact alone.

 

There are quite a few pictures taken by satellites of various of the Moon landing sites - not sure they're particularly well publicised but are easily found if you search the Internet

 

Approaching this in reverse order; soz. Saw this last. I don't want to leave your points unremarked.

 

Regarding photography; a lot of the anomalies have been explained by edge cases in photography. Not all of them.

 

Regarding radiation; I've seen numerous, conflicting accounts of what Van Allen should do to spacecraft. I'm fine to concede that the risk may be lower than instant death, and that the time spent travelling through the field may have limited exposure.

 

The point about renewed interest in the moon makes little sense though. We suddenly want to go there because they have water? Don't we already have a load of that here?

 

Finally, I'm not convinced by any of the lunar photography. Hand on heart, can anyone honestly say it's definitive?

[pap]

You missed my earlier post mate.

 

Really as someone who lived through the Apollo era the only surprising thing about it to me is that only three astronauts White, Chaffee and Grissom died in the whole project - this conspiracy thing is an unwarranted stain on the memory of those guys.

 

...oh and why just because I can only post 3 times a day does it make the conspiracy theories any more valid? Thats all for today folks.........

 

Aye, I saw - and hope I atoned.

 

Pay your fiver, sonny. Join the Full Member utopia, where you can talk sh!te all day.

[tedmaul]

Approaching this in reverse order; soz. Saw this last. I don't want to leave your points unremarked.

 

Regarding photography; a lot of the anomalies have been explained by edge cases in photography. Not all of them.

 

Regarding radiation; I've seen numerous, conflicting accounts of what Van Allen should do to spacecraft. I'm fine to concede that the risk may be lower than instant death, and that the time spent travelling through the field may have limited exposure.

 

The point about renewed interest in the moon makes little sense though. We suddenly want to go there because they have water? Don't we already have a load of that here?

 

Finally, I'm not convinced by any of the lunar photography. Hand on heart, can anyone honestly say it's definitive?

 

You seem convinced. The fact you started a thread about it. You really want to believe it was all faked for some strange reason.

[Benj]

I don't normally venture into the lounge but have to say that Pap, you might just be the most foolish person I've ever encountered on this forum.

[tedmaul]

It would take a hell of a conspiracy over 40 years. NDA's involving 1000's of people, directors actors, their families, scientists all keeping quiet. All sticking to the same story

[skintsaint]

It would take a hell of a conspiracy over 40 years. NDA's involving 1000's of people, directors actors, their families, scientists all keeping quiet. All sticking to the same story

 

and this is what convinces me it was real...imagine the cash one family involved would make with an 'exclusive' coming out and proving it was fake all along...

[trousers]

and this is what convinces me it was real...imagine the cash one family involved would make with an 'exclusive' coming out and proving it was fake all along...

 

Assuming people believed them of course....just look at the trouble Pap is having convincing people it was fake... some would argue that it's the very fact that no-one 'broke cover' that reinforces the theory that it never happened....

Edited 12 December, 2012 by trousers

[Saint in Paradise]

Bart Sibrel is the name of the guy who has made the two 'debunking' films Pap is talking about and is the guy punched by Buzz Aldrin. Sibrel had lied to him to get Aldrin to a hotel to talk about a Japanese kids programme. Sibrel's expertise and qualifications to attack NASA presumably comes from his day job working as a Nashville taxi driver.

 

There you are then case closed. We all know that Taxi Drivers know everything about everything. :lol:

[pap]

I don't normally venture into the lounge but have to say that Pap, you might just be the most foolish person I've ever encountered on this forum.

 

Aw, thanks Benj.

 

Very nice of you to drop in with that. I can't really offer a reciprocal comment though, kid. Don't really know who you are, sir.

[pap]

and this is what convinces me it was real...imagine the cash one family involved would make with an 'exclusive' coming out and proving it was fake all along...

 

How would this emergent family prove their accusations? What could they actually take to the media that would their claims stick? They'd either needs ton of unredacted source material from back in the day, physical evidence, or a ton of corroboration from other people willing to talk.

 

So yep, valid point. Could all be blown out of the water if they have proof, but what sort of smoking gun proof could they provide? Would they be take at all seriously?

[pap]

It would take a hell of a conspiracy over 40 years. NDA's involving 1000's of people, directors actors, their families, scientists all keeping quiet. All sticking to the same story

 

Would it now?

 

First off, not everyone involved in a conspiracy knows one is taking place.

 

Indulge me. Start from the opposite position. Imagine that there is no plan to actually go. The whole project is geared toward fraud. Do you still think 1000s of people would know?

[Bearsy]

Most of them was executed pap.

 

I ain't seen the movie you was on about but was the buzz aldrins part of conspiracy or did they genuinely think they'd gone to moon?

[pap]

You seem convinced. The fact you started a thread about it. You really want to believe it was all faked for some strange reason.

 

Just seen this little nugget.

 

I'll admit; I love a good conspiracy theory. I'd believe them all if I could.

 

Perhaps the best thing with any participation is the consequent abuse. This is pretty standard fare is you ask me; the old mention of a "strange reason" implying I'm a bit of a nutter and have some super-secret agenda.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I've never been to the Moon. I've never been to Japan either. But until I can go there and see for myself, I'm left with little choice but to accept that Japan does indeed exist and that actual people have walked upon its surface. Now I suppose some vast and sinister (doubtless CIA backed) conspiracy might exist with the sole purpose of fooling Humanity into believing than Japan is real, when in fact its existence is nothing more than a fiendishly complicated 'smoke and mirrors' illusion.

 

But when a extraordinary claim is made then surely a extraordinary level of verifiable evidence must be presented to support it. In the absence of that conclusive evidence then all a reasonable person can do is to assume that those making claims quite as outlandish as this are either misguided fantasist's or they may even be suffering from some form of mental illness - we migh even call them lunatics.

 

When we do eventually return to the Moon and examine the physical evidence of the Apollo missions in situ, I'll predict here and now even that won't satisfy the doubters. The same old claims about conspiracies and falsified evidence will reemerge and the argument will go on, and on, and on .... The truth is that Mankind has indeed visited the Lunar surface, an ample supply of hard evidence is there to prove it. Without wishing to sound overly cruel, it seems to me that only the incurably credulous could possible believe otherwise.

[pap]

Talk about diminishing returns, Charlie. Blimey mate. I appreciate you taking to time to quality your argument, but in future, I'd strongly suggest with going with something more that makes more sense.

 

Let's take your Japan point as an example. You assert that because you have never been there, it might not exist. And I thought my point was a little strawman...

 

Thing is mate, over a hundred million people live in Japan. The country has played a massive role in the events of the last 100 years. Furthermore, if I was under the impression that Japan might not exist, I could go there to double-check.

 

The rest of your post is just unsourced conjecture. I appreciate that you may be reeling from your retroreflector "slam dunk" going awry. Is this your best response?

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Of course the landings were genuine. The clincher for me is the way that the image of the Earth is portrayed ever since the landings. Before them it was always shown like it is in atlases with no clouds and nothing like as blue as we now know it to be. As for the flag, the important fact is that it doesn't wave when nobody is waving it by twisting the pole. If there were any air around then it would move at the slightest breath. I remember one comment saying that the moon lander's feet pads should be covered in dust because when it landed all the dust would be blown about and some was bound to have landed on them but any derbrain would understand that the dust would all be blown away from the lander and would follow ballistic trajectories and not return to cover the feet.

 

The arguments that the conspiracists put forward all seem to be based on a lack of understanding of the physics of space.

[Bearsy]

Talk about diminishing returns, Charlie. Blimey mate. I appreciate you taking to time to quality your argument, but in future, I'd strongly suggest with going with something more that makes more sense.

 

Let's take your Japan point as an example. You assert that because you have never been there, it might not exist. And I thought my point was a little strawman...

 

Thing is mate, over a hundred million people live in Japan. The country has played a massive role in the events of the last 100 years. Furthermore, if I was under the impression that Japan might not exist, I could go there to double-check.

 

The rest of your post is just unsourced conjecture. I appreciate that you may be reeling from your retroreflector "slam dunk" going awry. Is this your best response?

 

He's kind of right tho pap, there ain't no level of evidence that would satisfy some of them people that don't want to believe in the moon. Even if I invented time machine and let them tag along on the apollo mission they'd be like yeah this is just a good sound stage, also you've spiked my drinks with hallucigens.

 

You ain't one of them people tho I reckon. You just like the debates!

Edited 12 December, 2012 by Bearsy

[trousers]

I've never been to the Moon. I've never been to Japan either. But until I can go there and see for myself, I'm left with little choice but to accept that Japan does indeed exist and that actual people have walked upon its surface.

 

I've seen some close up photos of Japan and Japanese things and Japanese people so I can vouch that it probably exists.

 

Just a shame we don't have a similar number of modern day close-up photographs of what's on the moon's surface. Here's hoping someone events a camera and a lens sometime soon that's good enough to take close up photos of something that is 238,855 miles away so we can sweep aside these foolish conspiracies....

Edited 12 December, 2012 by trousers

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

My Japan anolgy is diliberetly silly of course - but there again so is this Lunatic theory.

 

I must say it seems a more than a tad rich to criticise me for 'conjecture' when the whole theory you are expounding is nothing but a edifice of supposition and conjecture build upon foundations of sand. I would be most interested however to see what you would consider to be proof that man has visited the Moon.

[pap]

My Japan anolgy is diliberetly silly of course - but there again so is this Lunatic theory.

 

I must say it seems a more than a tad rich to criticise me for 'conjecture' when the whole theory you are expounding is nothing but a edifice of supposition and conjecture build upon foundations of sand. I would be most interested however to see what you would consider to be proof that man has visited the Moon.

 

Then why make the analogy?

 

You said earlier that any extraordinary claim must be backed up with extraordinary evidence. I think we can both agree that "I've been to the moon" is a pretty extraordinary claim. The reason that this theory exists in the first place is because people are questioning the evidence associated with this extraordinary claim.

 

It's your right to assess my posts in any way you wish, Charlie. The reverse applies. If I had to summarise your input so far, I'd say you waded in with what you thought would be a killer idea, came up a little short and went to the plan B of thinly veiled insults.

 

Your last question deserves a bit of respect though. It's a fair one, and easily answered. Personally, I'd be happy with an international mission with a continual live feed. If they land there and find all the stuff that has been left there since 1969 and the images are verifiably live, that really is me happy.

[trousers]

Then why make the analogy?

 

You said earlier that any extraordinary claim must be backed up with extraordinary evidence. I think we can both agree that "I've been to the moon" is a pretty extraordinary claim. The reason that this theory exists in the first place is because people are questioning the evidence associated with this extraordinary claim.

 

It's your right to assess my posts in any way you wish, Charlie. The reverse applies. If I had to summarise your input so far, I'd say you waded in with what you thought would be a killer idea, came up a little short and went to the plan B of thinly veiled insults.

 

Your last question deserves a bit of respect though. It's a fair one, and easily answered. Personally, I'd be happy with an international mission with a continual live feed. If they land there and find all the stuff that has been left there since 1969 and the images are verifiably live, that really is me happy.

 

How would we verify the hoax busting mission wasn't a hoax?

[Whitey Grandad]

How would we verify the hoax busting mission wasn't a hoax?

Indeed. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?