(I'm quite interested in this) and happy to have my opinion changed...
I can see no evidence of this, therefore it's cobblers.
TBH boys I think Kryton is being magnanimous and somewhat humble, whilst we are busy just being rude, so lets pack it in yeah?
it seems like each time they try and cover something relatively minor up it gets found out in no time.
Do you want to read that again? 😀
Do you want to read that again?
No, do you want to be a bit more direct?
No, do you want to be a bit more direct?
OK
How would you know about any cover ups that were successful?
There could be 10 times more than the ones that came to light
They could have sent the mirror up in an unmanned rocket though?
To be positioned properly for the subsequent experiment, how?
it seems like each time they try and cover something relatively minor up
Who are "they"?
It's possible that NASA has "faked" or "doctored" a selection of photographs and possibly films. Worth it to them given what was at stake at certain times in the past. If so, you can't blame people for seeing a conspiracy there.
Government agencies worldwide sometimes use a strategy called "lying", all for the "greater good".
All the other evidence suggests that humans [i]have[/i] been to the moon.
There we go, everyone is right.
Now, building 7 . . . . .
Mr Woppit - Member
To be positioned properly for the subsequent experiment, how?
How would our astronaughts be able to measure the same positioning...?
How would you know about any cover ups that were successful?
There could be 10 times more than the ones that came to light
Of course, that's why I posed the subsequent questions. What else do you think might be faked?
The US govt has a history of attempting to cover up seedy practises like funding wars, smoothing the way for big business etc. Is there anything else on this scale that could be a big lie?
It just seems far far less probable than actually going to the moon, given that it's really not that complicated. The big challenges really are in rocket propulsion and project co-ordination, imo.
They could have sent the mirror up in an unmanned rocket though?
Hey, here's an idea. If they're doing that anyway, why not see about chucking a couple of blokes in there with it?
How would our astronaughts be able to measure the same positioning...?
I refuse to answer this question in the way I would like because it might upset you and get me baned.
I haven't researched the mirror thing, and TBH, can't be assed.
I love this.
"The moon landings were obviously faked. I mean, where's the evidence?"
"Er, well, it's here."
"Oh, I can't be bothered to look at that."
Hey, here's an idea. If they're doing that anyway, why not see about chucking a couple of blokes in there with it?
In fairness Cougar it's a hell of a lot easier to send up robot probes, cos they don't need to come back.
[quote=Cougar ]They could have sent the mirror up in an unmanned rocket though?
Hey, here's an idea. If they're doing that anyway, why not see about chucking a couple of blokes in there with it?
Because sending humans is a massive step up in terms of challenge.
I firmly believe we went there - I remember watching those grainy b&w shots - but if the best proof available is the existence of a mirror on the moon then it's no wonder the conspiracy theorists are still in denial.
the best proof available
You don't seriously think that is the best proof available, do you?
There were years of development, millions of dollars spent, 10s of thousands of people involved, multiple missions, thousands of photos, hours of film, samples of rocks, photos of stuff left behind...
I'd trust a tenth of all that over the opinions of a few people who have no understanding whatsoever of fairly basic science or even of photography saying 'I don't understand it so it couldn't have happened'.
f the best proof available is the existence of a mirror on the moon then it's no wonder the conspiracy theorists are still in denial.
this..
I don't wholeheartedly believe anything much, starting with material existence, and ending in UFOs and Simon Cowell so I really haven't got an opinion either way and couldn't care less..
What DOES interest me though is other folks seemingly unshakable and often almost quite aggressive faith in stuff..
So you guys that are certain, have you ever doubted or questioned your belief..?
Some of you talk about research and evidence.. what 'one thing' erased all doubt.. was there a moment where you thought 'yes well that's settled it for me..'?
How much "better" could the proof be for you?
And "robot" probes didn't exist at the time - the computing technology would not support such a device.
This stuff is so obvious, the wonder of it is that it shows just how many people don't seem to be able to think beyond the end of their own noses.
Feh. And for that reason, etc...
[quote=Mr Woppit ]How much "better" could the proof be for you?
And "robot" probes didn't exist at the time
The Russian Luna program disagrees with you.
This stuff is so obvious, the wonder of it is that it shows just how many people don't seem to be able to think beyond the end of their own noses.
Then why not feel free to enlighten us with such obviousness?
EDIT: On the program as least, that was pretty much NASA's argument btw...
And "robot" probes didn't exist at the time
Yeah they did, lots of lunar landers before Apollo 11. They weren't curiosity style rovers, but they were still robot probes.
Kryton - what would you like to see as proof?
This is the thing with conspiracy theories, it's like a religion. Bring in evidence to dispute their view and the main answer is "oh, you must be in on it too" or "you've been duped/brainwashed by them".
You can never argue with conspiracy theorists, it's pointless even trying. Although it is sometimes entertaining.
We should put a marker by their forum names - anyone who doesn't believe in the moon landings/planes taking off on conveyor belts/9-11 should just have a little idiot tag by their name. It'd save arguing with them.
🙂
Kryton - what would you like to see as proof?
Something that unequivocally proves that real live NASA astronoughts flew to the moon, landed, wandered around, and came back.
You can never argue with conspiracy theorists, it's pointless even trying. Although it is sometimes entertaining
You can if you are good enough 🙂
We should put a marker by their forum names - anyone who doesn't believe in the moon landings/planes taking off on conveyor belts/9-11 should just have a little idiot tag by their name. It'd save arguing with them.
see, it's that kind of aggressive stuff that confuses me.. that sort of thing denotes to me a kind of fervour that just doesn't add up
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by the way.. I just don't believe in anything that I can't drink, love or fall off
I don't wholeheartedly believe anything much, starting with material existence
This is a good place to start from.
Many people like to say "Science" proves this, "Science" says that.
Well, lots of "scientists" are saying that the physical world doesn't even exist in the way that humans believe/perceive it to.
Some people haven't even taken the time to consider what they actually are themselves ie what is your own consciousness? [i]That[/i] is where everything you think is happening starts from.
It's possibly a good idea to keep an open mind about EVERYTHING*
* except the wearing of lycra cycling shorts in public
Something that unequivocally proves
Like what? Tell us what you need to hear/see/touch.
Something that unequivocally proves that real live NASA astronoughts flew to the moon, landed, wandered around, and came back.
Such as? There's plenty of proof, you just choose to argue and not believe it.....
There's plenty of proof, you just choose to argue and not believe it.....
The latter part of your statement is true. The former part of your statement is incorrect. To correct, there is plenty of [i]evidence[/i], but there is also plenty of evidence to counter the evidence [i]for[/i] a manned moon landing.
Now interestingly within this thread alone, I'm getting to the point where I might come to the relaisation that it [i]can't[/i] be proven, becuase unless one/me chooses to accept the avidence for a moon landing, other than actually going with them myself and having a walk on the moon how would you convince me? Therefore it all becomes a non argument, just a matter of opinion.
Another quick question - do conspiracy [s]nutters[/s] theorists not believe in [i]any[/i] of the moon landings, or just the first one?
This
I don't wholeheartedly believe anything much, starting with material existence
and this
Many people like to say "Science" proves this, "Science" says that.
Well, lots of "scientists" are saying that the physical world doesn't even exist in the way that humans believe/perceive it to.
are just postmodernist twaddle, that have nothing to do with wether the moon landings are real or hoaxed.
If you want to apply those arguments then there is no convincing evidence that Yunki or Aye-Aye even exist to have posted their musings.
Meanwhile back in the real world..
This has yet to be shown:
but there is also plenty of evidence to counter the evidence for a manned moon landing.
come on present your evidence that it was a hoax?
rogg, to paraphrase Yunki a bit, you place agressive/antagonistic content in your post, but wouldn't you feel silly / would you apologise if you were proven wrong? Its not like the US has never been revealed to cover stuff up is it?
NASA reckoned that Concorde was technically more challenging than the moon landings.
But to be fair that was faked too, because if it wasn't you'd be able to fly to New York on it today.
there is also plenty of evidence to counter the truth
There isn't. If you have a mountain of evidence on one hand, and a tiny amount of easily answered questions (being asked by people with no qualifications) on the other, why would you go against the evidence?
Oh, and
the truth
Ha!
The latter part of your statement is true. The former part of your statement is incorrect. To correct, there is plenty of evidence, but there is also plenty of evidence to counter the evidence for a manned moon landing.
There you go, proving my point straight away. You WILL argue no matter what. Even if we sent
to you to the bloody Moon to see the footprints you'd STILL say it was a hoax! You MUST argue. You MUST be right. Whereas I don't really give a shit! 🙂
toys19 is just frustrated because he doesn't exist
Or there's the Buzz Aldrin approach to moon-landing deniers
Love the comment "That punch is clearly? fake! Look at the shadows, people!" 🙂
ok - Rogg / woppit - answer this one.
The Astronaughts had chest strapped camara with reference markings etched into the glass, verified by the designer. How do those markings appear [i]behind[/i] object being photographed?
Oh and Rogg, $40bn to use for a cover up would go a long way I suspect.
Posted 1 minute ago # Report-Post
aye-aye - Membertoys19 is just frustrated because he doesn't exist
Ummm this statement refutes itself....
Whereas I don't really give a shit!
Why are you posting then?
I think it reflects badly on all of us that this topic has reached 4 pages.
I refer people to Brian Cox's tweet linked to on page 1.
If you want to apply those arguments then there is no convincing evidence that Yunki or Aye-Aye even exist to have posted their musings.Meanwhile back in the real world..
maaaaaaate.. I clearly wasn't presenting an argument, just stating my position to prevent accusations of tin hattism
Don't try to set things off on a tangent just cos we is slightly more cleverer than you..!! 😆
I'm 'agnostic' so to speak.. sillybilly
So much vitriol..!
I asked my questions up there ^^^ somewhere
can you answer them..?
How do those markings appear behind object being photographed?
Because the light from the object being photographed bleaches out the crosshairs. There are about a billion examples of this on the internet.
if you took a photo and saw this phemonenon would you doubt that you had taken the photo?
