PhilippineSaint Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Indeed. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Exactly West Midland Force are free these days aren't they ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 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 away so we can sweep aside these foolish conspiracies.... This is all getting a bit heavy for a Wednesday moring. We are venturing into the realms of determining the nature of existence itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary/secondary_quality_distinction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 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. Whitey G. To get the shots of Earth you mention, you really don't need to be on the moon. In fact, the exhibit you're submitting for the defence is also being relied on by the prosecution. Same thing with the flag, sir. You're saying it can't be a hoax because the flag didn't move when it was still (?!). The pro-conspiracy argument takes the entire "performance" of the flag into account. You also mention the lander, citing that dust needn't necessarily be on the feet. Again, the pro-conspiracy crowd are using the lander for their own ends. They point to the pristine area around the base of the lander. If your dust was displaced, wouldn't there be some evidence of that happening under the lander? I will happily admit my knowledge of space isn't all that, but I do know what happens when you take a picture of someone with the sun behind them, or when they're shrouded in shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 How would we verify the hoax busting mission wasn't a hoax? That's why I stated that it should be an international mission. Do you reckon the Chinese, for example, would keep quiet if capable of delivering a massive propaganda blow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14813043 http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/454-Skimming-the-Moon.html Trouble is Pap, for some reason you don't want to believe that the Lunar landings happened, for me I could quite believe 1 mission was faked but why go to the expense of faking more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 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 away so we can sweep aside these foolish conspiracies.... Indeed, trousers. Show us the real evidence! Did you know that the media weren't given a direct feed of the events? They had to film a NASA projection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Did you know that the media weren't given a direct feed of the events? They had to film a NASA projection. Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14813043 http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/454-Skimming-the-Moon.html Trouble is Pap, for some reason you don't want to believe that the Lunar landings happened, for me I could quite believe 1 mission was faked but why go to the expense of faking more! Posted earlier in response to "why fake it multiple times" query. To refine their filmmaking skills? To enjoy the continued reverence accorded to the nation because of its achievement? To keep people distracted from the ongoing horror in Vietnam? Remember that the space race was all about propaganda ( Lyndon Johnson explicitly uses the word when making his case to Kennedy ). The US could command continuing respect during the Apollo missions for its technical achievements. If this was a hoax, they actually had every reason to reinforce it with additional data. It was certainly a propaganda coup too. Why wouldn't they repeat something that is worked in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 As you well know no such mission will take place for years/decades to come, so its imposible then to provide evidence that with disprove the Lunitic theory to your satifaction - how very convieient. For some reason you appear firmly to believe that the laser reflectors that demonstrably exist on the Lunar surface were not placed there my Human hands. Please expand on this argument. If not put there by Astronauts how exactly were they emplaced given the limitations of 1960's era remote operation technology available? Which lander undertook this mission and how was the mirror removed from the craft and put successfully into position without any Human assistance? Those of us who have reached a certain age will remember that back in the day it was wildly assumed that permanent colony's would be established on the Moon by 1980. Had that occurred than your vast conspiracy would be in grave danger of exposure of course - with disastrous results for the many conspirators involved. What exactly is the overwhelming need behind this conspiracy that justifies running such huge risks? It seems to be that a mere propaganda victory for the NASA and USA doesn't really cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benj Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Beacuse the feed came down in a low resolution at 10fps, technology wasn't advanced enough to push 30fps footage at high resolution all the way from the moon. The broadcasting company's did not have the technology to upscale in real-time to a signal that would actually work on tv sets. So NASA had to do the upscaling and allow them to film the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 That's why I stated that it should be an international mission. Do you reckon the Chinese, for example, would keep quiet if capable of delivering a massive propaganda blow? The Chinese could already do that by inventing a super dooper camera to take close up images of the moon surface showing there's no USA landing sites there.....although, if they were to find it was there then I guess they could airbrush it out....answered my own question.....damn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Source? Originals gone missing as well, apparently http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landings_tapes_reported_missing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Thought: would it be such a big deal if it WAS proven to be a fake? What do those who are adamant that it happened hope to achieve by pouring scorn on those who believe it didn't happen? Different opinions are good, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benj Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Originals gone missing as well, apparently http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landings_tapes_reported_missing And there's the reason why they didn't give a live feed. The failure of logic and inquisitive reasoning is on your part by blindly believe what you read on conspiracy websites whilst lacking the will, or perhaps the scientific knowledge, to consider the details of their claims yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 As you well know no such mission will take place for years/decades to come, so its imposible then to provide evidence that with disprove the Lunitic theory to your satifaction - how very convieient. For some reason you appear firmly to believe that the laser reflectors that demonstrably exist on the Lunar surface were not placed there my Human hands. Please expand on this argument. If not put there by Astronauts how exactly were they emplaced given the limitations of 1960's era remote operation technology available? Which lander undertook this mission and how was the mirror removed from the craft and put successfully into position without any Human assistance? Those of us who have reached a certain age will remember that back in the day it was wildly assumed that permanent colony's would be established on the Moon by 1980. Had that occurred than your vast conspiracy would be in grave danger of exposure of course - with disastrous results for the many conspirators involved. What exactly is the overwhelming need behind this conspiracy that justifies running such huge risks? It seems to be that a mere propaganda victory for the NASA and USA doesn't really cut it. Why would any mission take years to accomplish, Charlie? After all, we already know how to do it. We've known how to do it for 40 years. I've expanded on the retroreflector argument loads, and don't fancy repeating points I've already made. In summary though, what's easier? Sending a bunch of probes to the moon hoping that one will stick, or send people to do it. Oh, and the non-existent 1980s moon bases? You trying to prove your point or mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benj Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Thought: would it be such a big deal if it WAS proven to be a fake? What do those who are adamant that it happened hope to achieve by pouring scorn on those who believe it didn't happen? Different opinions are good, surely? It's the single greatest achievement in the history of mankind. People don't like the hard work, effort and sacrifice of those involved to be undermined by people who lack the capacity to understand the scientific details behind what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 I have watched Iron Sky and I know Nazis are on the moon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benj Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Why would any mission take years to accomplish, Charlie? After all, we already know how to do it. We've known how to do it for 40 years. I've expanded on the retroreflector argument loads, and don't fancy repeating points I've already made. In summary though, what's easier? Sending a bunch of probes to the moon hoping that one will stick, or send people to do it. Oh, and the non-existent 1980s moon bases? You trying to prove your point or mine? That's not an acceptable response, how do you propose the reflector was put in place? You don't just fire things at the moon and hope they land in one place. The technology to place it there remotely did not exist. Look at the latest Mars rover, that is a massive technological advance and is one of the first remote probes that could feasibly have placed such a device with sufficient precision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 And there's the reason why they didn't give a live feed. The failure of logic and inquisitive reasoning is on your part by blindly believe what you read on conspiracy websites whilst lacking the will, or perhaps the scientific knowledge, to consider the details of their claims yourself. Ooh. Format change. That must be it! Super stuff, Benj. You're really holding your own! Bit weird how they subsequently changed format from extant to disappeared, eh sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Whitey G. To get the shots of Earth you mention, you really don't need to be on the moon. In fact, the exhibit you're submitting for the defence is also being relied on by the prosecution. Same thing with the flag, sir. You're saying it can't be a hoax because the flag didn't move when it was still (?!). The pro-conspiracy argument takes the entire "performance" of the flag into account. You also mention the lander, citing that dust needn't necessarily be on the feet. Again, the pro-conspiracy crowd are using the lander for their own ends. They point to the pristine area around the base of the lander. If your dust was displaced, wouldn't there be some evidence of that happening under the lander? I will happily admit my knowledge of space isn't all that, but I do know what happens when you take a picture of someone with the sun behind them, or when they're shrouded in shadow. To get the shots showing a blue earth with swirling white clouds you need to be a long way out in space, not impossible I grant you but before the landings nobody ever thought it would look like this so why would any conspirator have done so? I'm saying that the flag did not move when it was not being moved by a human agent. This would not have been possible with people moving around it unless they were in a vacuum. The dust was blown away from the ground under the lander. Dust in a vacuum will not return because there is no air motion to carry it. Sun and shadows on the earth are completely different from a lunar environment. The was an attempted reconstruction made at night time in the desert to try to reproduce the type of shots that were taken on the moon and they were reasonably similar. This is not a typical earth-bound situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benj Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Ooh. Format change. That must be it! Super stuff, Benj. You're really holding your own! Bit weird how they subsequently changed format from extant to disappeared, eh sir? How about you offer a counter argument rather than just showing your lack of understanding by mocking. The need to up-scale is obvious to anyone with even the most basic understanding of broadcasting and video technology. As you clearly believe it was unnecessary please explain how you would have overcome the problem in a different manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 That's not an acceptable response, how do you propose the reflector was put in place? You don't just fire things at the moon and hope they land in one place. The technology to place it there remotely did not exist. Look at the latest Mars rover, that is a massive technological advance and is one of the first remote probes that could feasibly have placed such a device with sufficient precision. Probe. Appropriate weighting. Control booster. Time. Automated cover release activated by a mechanical trigger ( e.g the feet touching down. ). That about cover it? It's a lay response, I know. I suppose that technology was beyond the moon visitors of the late 1960s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Why would any mission take years to accomplish, Charlie? After all, we already know how to do it. We've known how to do it for 40 years. I've expanded on the retroreflector argument loads, and don't fancy repeating points I've already made. In summary though, what's easier? Sending a bunch of probes to the moon hoping that one will stick, or send people to do it. Oh, and the non-existent 1980s moon bases? You trying to prove your point or mine? I note with interest the lack of any detail as to how the Lunar reflectors were indeed assembleed and placed in to their correct position - lets keep it fuzzy eh? The reason man has not returned to the Moon post Apollo would appear to be one centered on the extreme financial cost of such a mission and the lack of political will to do so, or perhaps it's just a cynical attempt to hide the evidence of your vast conspiracy. I'll leave it to others to decide which explanation they find more convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 How about you offer a counter argument rather than just showing your lack of understanding by mocking. The need to up-scale is obvious to anyone with even the most basic understanding of broadcasting and video technology. As you clearly believe it was unnecessary please explain how you would have overcome the problem in a different manner. Your opening post on this thread governs the level of respect you're getting, Benj. You are fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 It's the single greatest achievement in the history of mankind. Ahead of irrigation and sanitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 I note with interest the lack of any detail as to how the Lunar reflectors were indeed assembleed and placed in to their correct position - lets keep it fuzzy eh? The reason man has not returned to the Moon post Apollo would appear to be one centered on the extreme financial cost of such a mission and the lack of political will to do so, or perhaps it's just a cynical attempt to hide the evidence of your vast conspiracy. I'll leave it to others to decide which explanation they find more convincing. Keep it fuzzy? Hardly. I've given a layman account of how I think it can be done. I am no expert on late 60s space propulsion, navigation or robotics, but the general rule of space exploration is to send a probe somewhere you plan to send a human. The Russians started unmanned, then used animals, then used cosmonauts. You're trying to use a lack of technology to prove your case when in reality, automated systems were essential in the nascent days of both space programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 (edited) 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! Hello Bear. Didn't want to leave this unremarked. You're right. Some people will never be satisfied. All doubt would disappear in my mind if they had an international verifiable mission where we got live feeds. I know that's a tad pricey, but I've been asked what'd make me happy. That's pretty much it. You are also right about me enjoying a bit of debate. Edited 12 December, 2012 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Hello Bear. Didn't want to leave this unremarked. You're right. Some people will never be satisfied. All doubt would disappear in my kind if they had an international verifiable mission where we got live feeds. I know that's a tad pricey, but I've been asked what'd make me happy. That's pretty much it. You are also right about me enjoying a bit of debate. Yes indeed Pap, you are proving to be a master debater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Thought: would it be such a big deal if it WAS proven to be a fake? What do those who are adamant that it happened hope to achieve by pouring scorn on those who believe it didn't happen? Different opinions are good, surely? Interesting question. It it was proved to be fake, I don't think much would happen, apart from the fact that the US would be internationally renowned for being dishonest for something like eternity. Opinions on the US differ, depending on where you are in the world and/or your political leanings, but the halo has never completely fallen off from a Western European perspective. I think at the very least, it'd be an indelible stain on the nation's character. To your second question, why do people have such a problem with a different view. Well, if I was half the nut job these people made me out to be, I'd be insisting that dissenting voices were shadowy government plants. And yet, I have the same conversations with lifelong friends about this stuff, and some of them get just as animated. It's a common reaction. I could sit here and idly assign labels to those who been kind enough to throw one my way, but when it comes down to it, people don't like to believe stuff they don't want to hear or know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Yes indeed Pap, you are proving to be a master debater. That too, Ian. (Frankly, what man isn't?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 IMAGE OF APOLLO 11 LUNAR REFLECTOR. As can be clearly seen below the Reflector in question is too far distant from the Lunar Lander to have been installed via some (unidentified and non existent) remotely controlled mechanical arm. Nor is there any evidence of the track marks that any kind of Vehicle must have left behind. The suggestion that this equipment has been dropped onto the surface from some Orbital vehicle seems without foundation in fact. Footprints left behind by the Apollo Astronauts that actually did this work can however be seen. Now the Lunar conspiracy fans will no doubt claim that the imagine itself has been mocked up in some studio as they always do. That kind of claim is very difficult, or impossible, to disprove of course. But the fact that it is hard to prove a negative does not in any way amount to proof. If this case was in front of a judge it would be laughed out of court. For the love of reason this point should be easy enough to understand you would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 I dunno why you keep on offering up disputed evidence as evidence, Charlie. It's a photo of a lunar lander and a retroreflector. The central theme of this thread is whether man landed on the moon. So, assuming planned hoax as starting point, what value does your proof have to me? I say again, it's a photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 I dunno why you keep on offering up disputed evidence as evidence, Charlie. It's a photo of a lunar lander and a retroreflector. The central theme of this thread is whether man landed on the moon. So, assuming planned hoax as starting point, what value does your proof have to me? I say again, it's a photo. Just about as unreasonable a contribution as I ever seen on here - well done. My advice to you is that if you want to portray yourself as some kind of 'seeker after the truth' then rejecting evidence without any foundation - photo's are valuable evidence by the way - is unlikely to win you many admirers. But as you have already admitted that no possible evidence could persuade you anyway, I suppose I was being overly optimistic in hoping that you were open to reason. But never mind - this forum has your number now shipmate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Just about as unreasonable a contribution as I ever seen on here - well done. My advice to you is that if you want to portray yourself as some kind of 'seeker after the truth' then rejecting evidence without any foundation - photo's are valuable evidence by the way - is unlikely to win you many admirers. But as you have already admitted that no possible evidence could persuade you anyway, I suppose I was being overly optimistic in hoping that you were open to reason. But never mind - this forum has your number now shipmate. Right, Charlie. Your points in turn. Your first statement is either untrue, or indicative of a man who hasn't read much of the forum, or indeed, his own posts. Your second point. If you want to portray yourself as a reasonable bloke with something to add to the debate, smearing posters who hold different views isn't going to win you many admirers. On your third point, I've already set out conditions that'd immediately force me to conclude that the landings were genuine. You say that's invalid, because it'll never happen. Too expensive, apparently. You asked me how a retroreflector might get onto the moon without a physical human to place it there. I countered that the first steps into space involved flights without humans. Was Laika operating the launch controls, Charlie? I even suggested how you might deliver a mirror to the moon and deploy it, citing the ability to try many times and technology that was known to exist at the time. Your point about being open to reason is brilliant given its provenance, Charlie. I am more than happy to be corrected, but when was the last time you didn't stick up for the status quo? Every film or TV program you recommend is ages old, and you frequently moan about anything new. If I had to make a value judgment, and trust me - I'm going to be a lot more charitable, my assessment would be that you're a bit stuck in your ways. That's fair enough, sir - but I find that difficult to reconcile with your accusations of me being closed-minded. I'll believe anything when I see enough evidence, and my opinion on this, as with all but the most outlandish conspiracy theories, is to keep an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Ahead of irrigation and sanitation? ...and the roads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 ...and the roads... Developed into farce again I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Developed into farce again I see Wasn't it always thus so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Look, the people in the Big Bang Theory episode, "the lunar excitation", bounced a laser off the reflector the US left on the Moon. What more proof do you want? You'll be telling me next that the Big Bang Theory is made up too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindsorSaint Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Mythbusters tackled all of the moon landing conspiracy theories... http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Look, the people in the Big Bang Theory episode, "the lunar excitation", bounced a laser off the reflector the US left on the Moon. What more proof do you want? You'll be telling me next that the Big Bang Theory is made up too! Well, I suspect that you might not be treating me quite so seriously... ...but no character assassination from the Ken Tone grassy knoll! Cheers, fella! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 pap also believes that 9/11 was a setup and that saville is being framed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Mythbusters tackled all of the moon landing conspiracy theories... http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing They tackled some. Ignored the difficult bits. May well have had a pre-determined set of conclusions with a title like Mythbusters, mightn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 pap also believes that 9/11 was a setup and that saville is being framed Go read the Savile thread and weep, Jamie. I think you'll find I was the first person to back up your guilty as hell statement. Still, don't let facts get in the way of a good jibe, kid. Christ, you'd have nothing left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 They tackled some. Ignored the difficult bits. May well have had a pre-determined set of conclusions with a title like Mythbusters, mightn't it? I suggest you go watch the program properly, not just one episode. Loads of "myths" that they haven't been able to bust... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 I suggest you go watch the program properly, not just one episode. Loads of "myths" that they haven't been able to bust... Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Such as? Oh I don't know, I haven't watched it for ages. Actaully, they tried to bust the myth about mentoes in coke and failed...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Oh I don't know, I haven't watched it for ages. Actaully, they tried to bust the myth about mentoes in coke and failed...... So, er, real big stuff then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Pap: out of interest, is it just the moon landings that you think NASA (might) have faked? Or does the conspiracy run deeper? Were the Pioneer and Voyage projects a hoax also, and the pictures of Jupiter and Saturn an elaborate computer generated ruse? The International Space Station, well that was visible from earth at times so a bit tough to fake that one. How about the Mars rover; there's no evidence that actually landed, is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Right, Charlie. Your points in turn. Your first statement is either untrue, or indicative of a man who hasn't read much of the forum, or indeed, his own posts. Your second point. If you want to portray yourself as a reasonable bloke with something to add to the debate, smearing posters who hold different views isn't going to win you many admirers. On your third point, I've already set out conditions that'd immediately force me to conclude that the landings were genuine. You say that's invalid, because it'll never happen. Too expensive, apparently. You asked me how a retroreflector might get onto the moon without a physical human to place it there. I countered that the first steps into space involved flights without humans. Was Laika operating the launch controls, Charlie? I even suggested how you might deliver a mirror to the moon and deploy it, citing the ability to try many times and technology that was known to exist at the time. Your point about being open to reason is brilliant given its provenance, Charlie. I am more than happy to be corrected, but when was the last time you didn't stick up for the status quo? Every film or TV program you recommend is ages old, and you frequently moan about anything new. If I had to make a value judgment, and trust me - I'm going to be a lot more charitable, my assessment would be that you're a bit stuck in your ways. That's fair enough, sir - but I find that difficult to reconcile with your accusations of me being closed-minded. I'll believe anything when I see enough evidence, and my opinion on this, as with all but the most outlandish conspiracy theories, is to keep an open mind. Open mind ... 'Empty' seems a better description. Leaving the obvious weakness of your argument to one side for now, the level of hypocrisy you are spouting on here is in danger of achieving Saturn V proportions itself. To have the gall to accuse me of "smearing" you when the entire argument you are promoting is nothing but a huge smear on the character of the men who did take Humanity to the Moon and back is quite staggering. When you promote this intellectual garbage what you are in fact doing is calling better men than you liars. Now I say if you are going to call any man a liar then you better be damn sure you can prove it, or keep your mouth shut. Brave men sacrificed their lives for the Apollo programme, while countless others gave the best years of their careers to it. These people have been described justifiably as the 'best and the brightest' of their generation. To stoop so low as to insult their memories I find truly contemptible - akin to insulting the pilots of Fighter Command during 1940 almost. Re your - evidence free - notion of the Lunar reflectors being dropped into place from orbit. Which space vehicle was employed to deliver this payload? When and where was it launched from? What technique was employed to ensure the payload was adequately retarded during the descent phase? How EXACTLY did the conspirators ensure the mirror landed the right way up, on the precisely correct alignment, and on a suitably level section of the Lunar surface - all done without any Human assistance you say ..... perhaps Laika was there to help out. While we are on technical questions, the well known film that exists of the Apollo Astronauts playfully enjoying the Moons low gravity conditions. As this must have been filmed back on Earth of course (with its unavoidable 1G gravity) how was this 'special effect' achieved? No sophisticated CGI back in the 1960's of course, so presumably you think that the old 'wire' method long employed in Hollywood movies must have been used. But I've looked closely at the film (I have it on DVD) and I just can't see a shred of evidence of any wires - and you can nearly always see them if you look hard enough. For that matter a large sound stage must have been constructed to support the wires/specialist lighting and protect this remarkable 'set' from Planet Earth's all too pervasive weather - but your 'Set' appears to be a vast completely open space without any roof or side structure being present. This too needs to be explained. I await your reply with interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 While we are on technical questions, the well known film that exists of the Apollo Astronauts playfully enjoying the Moons low gravity conditions. As this must have been filmed back on Earth of course (with its unavoidable 1G gravity) how was this 'special effect' achieved? No sophisticated CGI back in the 1960's of course, so presumably you think that the old 'wire' method long employed in Hollywood movies must have been used. But I've looked closely at the film (I have it on DVD) and I just can't see a shred of evidence of any wires - and you can nearly always see them if you look hard enough. For that matter a large sound stage must have been constructed to support the wires/specialist lighting and protect this remarkable 'set' from Planet Earth's all too pervasive weather - but your 'Set' appears to be a vast completely open space without any roof or side structure being present. This too needs to be explained. Lol you don't actually think there was people in them space suits? Why do you think they made them air tight? So the spider monkeys and helium can't escape! Edit: Sorry for disrupting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now