[Closed] Moon Landing Hoax? Channel 5 now!

[paranoid mode]

The evidence for an actual moon landing is pretty overwhelming and takes a large does of stupidity or conspiracy magic to not see this. [u]Unless you haven't researched it properly[/u]

FTFY, as I've mentioned several times I haven't looked into it properly

[/paranoid mode]

as I've mentioned several times I haven't looked into it properly

That seems a bizarre position to take
If most people told me the A1 road had London at one end and Edinburgh at the other, I'd take it as a safe bet that it was in fact the case.
I don't think I'd look to take a contrary position without research.

You seem to have the normality arse about tit, surely without research you would take the generally accepted position?

I haven't looked into it properly

Do you mean you haven't looked into the "it didn't happen" arguments well enough to figure out if its worth continuing to argue that it didn't happen ?

Or do you mean you haven't seen the Videos and all the photos of those men walking on the moon ?

nealglover - Member

I haven't looked into it properly

Do you mean you haven't looked into the "it didn't happen" arguments well enough to figure out if its worth continuing to argue that it didn't happen ?

That ^^ and the counter evidence.

I thought that you had done all that "years ago" from what you said earlier.

FFS. I did, not properly, then I posted on here 10 years later and realised I didn't know as much as I thought I did (again), and quite frankly admitted that.

Can we stop the individual persecution now please? I don't know how much more self flaggelation and admission you want out of me before some other random STWer pops up and makes sure I'm being implied an idiot. >:|

[/RANT}

I've never thoroughly researched the claim that the Earth is round. There is [url= http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence ]evidence to the contrary[/url].

I do think that anyone who really believes that the moon landing was faked is an idiot.

I'm just glad that after your research is done, you probably won't be one of them (any more 😉 )

I've never thoroughly researched the claim that the Earth is round.

Have you not seen the photos that Armstrong and Aldrin took from the moon?

.... oh, hang on

If most people told me the A1 road had London at one end and Edinburgh at the other, I'd take it as a safe bet that it was in fact the case.

Can we stop the individual persecution now please?

Yes please, it's not nice reading. The guy's being pretty decent, so let's all just move on and have a nice discussion.

Can we stop the individual persecution now please?

Awwwww, but i wanna get some persecution in.

Been busy getting Christmas trees and renovating a floor standing counterbalance Loom. Feel like I might have missed my chance.

Where are we at anyway? Who believes the Earth is flat, and who believes the moon landing never happened?

The moon landing conspiracy I've always found more intriguing is that they did go but the photos didn't come out so they had to fake them 😀

Can't be easy to work a [url= http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html ]Hasselblad[/url] with a spacesuit on.

[img] [/img]

Imagine getting back and finding out Buzz had his thumb over the lens or Neil left the cap on 😀

Or even that you miscalculated the effect of radiation on the film and it is all ruined.

Piemonster, what's this about looms? What do you plan to do with this thing?

[img] [/img]

❓

It's the girlfriends new purchase, it's all square and the joints are good. It's going to need a few pieces making up but fortunately the frame is fully intact so any new wood won't stand out. Big old beast though. We no longer have a dining room.

This is similar sort of thing
[img] [/img]

It's absorbed about £45's worth of Bees Wax so far as well.

My wife would be dead jealous. How much weaving has she been doing?

Never mind luna landings.. I sense a loomer stand-off on the event horizon.. I was looking at some delightful scarves that piemonster's other half has been trying to punt..

If everything's ready here on the Dark Side of the Loom...

I've never heard of an academic geologist refer to a moon rock as a bit too like an earth rock...

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/index.cfm

Nothing on this sort of scale, plenty on Rigid Heddle and Ashford table looms. She spins as well.

I very much suspect I'll end up washing ovine faeces out of sheep skins soon enough. Just as well grow an unkempt beard and have twigs in my hair and be done with it.

I was looking at some delightful scarves that piemonster's other half has been trying to punt..

OI!

Pm, my wife has an Ashford table loom. Can't afford a floor loom atm, and we don't have the space either. You've seen all the scarf stuff she did haven't you?

Not yet molgrips, linky?

Yeh, they take up quite a chunk of room. You have to be able to move easily round them too. This thing is a 1.75m cube.

Can we stop the individual persecution now please?
Yes please, it's not nice reading. The guy's being pretty decent, so let's all just move on and have a nice discussion.

No one on STW accepts when they have made an error or they are not expert - lets be honest most of us are more opinionated than we are informed- and he then gets flamed for being honest.

Not helpful folks and leads to pointless posturing where debates on here never result in changed opinions...bit childish and a little like bullying.

I have more respect for the honest person than for the jibe givers.

Not yet molgrips, linky?

Email me, in profile. Wouldn't want to stray into advertising...

I said counter balance, I meant counter marche

Just catching up with this after a couple of days; it's the stuff about the cross-hairs, and the supposed multiple light sources put forward by alleged 'experts' that drives me nuts. My basic experience as a photographer tells me that the photos are genuine, for the reasons already stated. Bleached-out highlights will remove the cross-hairs, with possibly a tiny bit intruding into the white, which can be clearly seen in places, and the stupidity over the illuminated shadows, when any photographer knows about fill-in reflectors, shows these people to be incompetent.

Kryton57 - Member
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.

Or do you believe the Orbiter actually has a man in it, with a MacBook and a copy of photoshop, faking the photos before they're sent back?

I reckon given enough time and the right team I could write some software to automatically "photoshop" the images before they were sent back. Actually scratch that - a couple of days messing around would probably do it. Though if you perform the user requirements stage properly you realise that all you're attempting to do is send back photos which appear to be of the moon with man-made artefacts in them, so the simplest solution is to simply upload them onto Orbiter before it left the ground.

I've never thoroughly researched the claim that the Earth is round. There is evidence to the contrary.

Indeed - it takes a large degree of stupidity not to realise that the earth is actually an oblate spheroid.

Forget the photos from other space ships as proof as said above they would be easy to fake in the 21 Century

Its the the original still shots form the surface that provide better evidence. There is no way that 1960 special effects would stand up now.

I'm interested in what hoax theorists actually believe. Its seems conclusive that we orbited the moon as the whole world could pick up the signals coming from the moon. You really couldn't fake that. So the fakers believe that we went round the moon but could't actually land on it?

Then there are the moon rocks. These have been examined by thousands of geologists and tested in every possible way. How do you silence a world wide academic community. What they are looking at bits of concrete or lumps of rock form an American desert and not crying fowl.

crying fowl... sorry 😳

[img] [/img]

Its seems conclusive that we orbited the moon as the whole world could pick up the signals coming from the moon. You really couldn't fake that. So the fakers believe that we went round the moon but could't actually land on it?

Well it's a lot, lot easier to orbit the moon than it is to land on it. You only have to look at the success rate of more recent attempts to land on other celestial bodies as evidence of that.

Well it's a lot, lot easier to orbit the moon than it is to land on it. You only have to look at the success rate of more recent attempts to land on other celestial bodies as evidence of that.

I'm sure thats true but if you don't believe we landed on the moon then one has to decide what yodid happen. imean surely every one accepts that we can get peol into orbit?

One of the arguments that we didn't go to the moon is that people couldn't survive the Van Allen belts. That doesn't stack up if we orbitted the moon

Also I've never heard a sceptic say that the thing they don't believe was that we could get to or from the surface from lunar orbit

Proof aside,

Does it not seem somewhat unlikely that they'd go to all that trouble to [i]almost[/i] put man on the moon, all that R&D and billions of USD in rocket parts, computers, staff, etc etc etc, and then at the eleventh hour go "oh, bugger it, let's just say we did and construct an elaborate hoax relying on thousands of people to keep a secret instead"?

Sure, it's more difficult to develop a manned space programme. And it's more difficult to land on the moon than orbit it. But by the time you've got to the point of putting people in orbit (which surely can't be contested unless you think that MIR and the Shuttle are also hoaxes), by that point it's probably more difficult to stage it than to actually do it. And for what reason?

My experience of the conspiracy theorists is that they don't believe "we landed on the moon", like we woke up one morning, hopped in a rocket, nobbed off for a couple of days and came back going 'ta-daah!' What exactly is it that they don't believe? That we went there but didn't land? That's a pretty lame hoax theory. And if you extrapolate back to a wider-reaching lie, where do you stop? The whole of Apollo? Gemini? Mercury?

I'm starting to think that debunking hoax theories is a waste of time and effort placating the stupid. Whether we can effectively debunk the 'evidence' or not, if you think it through for more than about ten seconds it becomes pretty damn conclusive that we must have been there.

I'm starting to think that debunking hoax theories is a waste of time and effort placating the stupid

I couldn't possibly agree more.

Although we do run the risk of it being considered a "personal attack" obviously.

Well it's a lot, lot easier to orbit the moon than it is to land on it

Its not it is harder to orbit it, way harder

If you want to land on it you just need to hit it- if you reach it you hit it to orbit it you need a better flight path and the ability to control it once there

I think you mean land and return being more difficult than just hitting the moon which is true.

As for to other landings - they all landed some just far harder than we wanted 😉

Its seems daft to think they did all this , got to the moon orbitted then just badly faked the photos.

One of the arguments that we didn't go to the moon is that people couldn't survive the Van Allen belts. That doesn't stack up if we orbitted the moon

I already posted the answer to that a few pages back. Basically it's not very radioactive at all, NASA knew all about it, the craft had all the shielding they needed and the astronauts received a minimal dosage of radiation which was well below any safe limit.

Try it for yourself:

https://kerbalspaceprogram.com

😀

I think you mean land and return being more difficult than just hitting the moon which is true.

Oh no, I actually meant just impact with the moon in any old fashion, that was surely obvious from the context. Hence you're right it is easier to do that than orbit. 🙄

I reckon given enough time and the right team I could write some software to automatically "photoshop" the images before they were sent back. Actually scratch that - a couple of days messing around would probably do it.

i believe.. i stayed up late one night when i was 6 and it happened right there on our old telly.. sometimes you have to believe what folks say.

the canadians spent a fortune trying to debunk the claims of ww1 hero billy bishop.. he claimed he downed 78 planes.. mostly unseen by anyone else yet the germans believed he had as there lads developed a habit of not returning.. to this day he is the only person awarded the VC for bravery on thier own say so..

In 1969? Really?

That's what makes it more impressive. Consider that the Apollo craft had about 1/1000th the computing capabilities of the average smartphone.

So high grade photoshopping that would still stand up to scrutiny today?

Not likely.

I came here to find out what kaesese (whatever) had found on yootoob. And what [s]Hilarious[/s] interesting and reasonable theories accompany them.

I am disappoint.

I reckon given enough time and the right team I could write some software to automatically "photoshop" the images before they were sent back. Actually scratch that - a couple of days messing around would probably do it.

In 1969? Really?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2012/dec/13/moon-landings-faked-science-confessions

🙂

Damn you, crazy-legs! Everything I believe in has been destroyed! I'm an empty, broken shell of a human being, now. (Sob!) 😥

This seems relevant and interesting: