We Never Went to the Moon [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

Cosmored

03-01-2009, 09:43 AM

Here's some stuff that convinced me we never went to the moon.

(revised 8/3/2011)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of that here in this three part series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1

More here...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+Flagging+The+Dea d+Horses&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

Here's some more about flags moving the way they'd move in air while they were supposedly on the moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 55 second mark.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286
It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Here it is doubled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.

(revised 8/3/2011)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:52 time mark)

(Here's the same footage in case the above video goes off-line)
http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A028ADB54169962B6961582AEC2F/apollo-xi-the-little-gem-par.aspx
(4:10 time mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.
Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=TejsnPThmd4

Look at the way the straps move in real zero-gravity in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
(3:17 time mark)

Collins' jacket corner moves the same way as the jacket corners do in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

Obviously, that Apollo footage was taken in gravity here on earth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Happened on the Moon" (documentary)
Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503
Part 2
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f

Here are some articles.

http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
http://www.reddit.com/domain/northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/11/project-apollo-what-were-they-thinking_24.html
http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html

The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Here's a link to the entire conference.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1535324572487804641

This keeps going on and offline so if this link is dead, try googling "Apollo 11 press conference".

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

Look at the picture in reply #7 of this page at the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=714&page=1#14424

The shadow of the rod is proportionally longer than the shadow of the bag. Evidently, that's how they got those pictures of very dark shadows--they drew them.

Here's more on the bogus shadow issue.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11053&hl=apollo

Here's some good research if anyone wants to delve further.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=48603&t=51606

Here's some info about the pro-Apollo Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628

edit 3/8/2011
------------------------------------

There's more important info on pages 32 and 34 of this thread.

Cosmored

03-01-2009, 09:43 AM

The main reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation. Here are some articles and videos I've found on the subject.

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME

two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo
http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/

These two are important
---------------------------
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
---------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
(23 parts)

Athena Bast

03-01-2009, 09:45 AM

You need to get yourself some Mythbusters.

Michael P

03-01-2009, 09:46 AM

Yeah we did.

StoneGold

03-01-2009, 09:47 AM

I can only assume now that it shouldn't be that difficult to convince you to give me your social security number.

Bakasama

03-01-2009, 09:49 AM

Ummm, wouldn't the US enemies like the Soviet Union made a such a big deal about the moon landings being fake? I would be interested to know what your educational level is.

Oh, look a newbie, with a really odd post. This guy could be a troll.

StoneGold

03-01-2009, 09:52 AM

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/anim.gif

rick

03-01-2009, 09:57 AM

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/anim.gif

It's hard not to love Buzz isn't it?

dingo

03-01-2009, 09:58 AM

BUZZ ALDRIN PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo)!

Or in other words, what Stonegold said.

OverMaster

03-01-2009, 09:59 AM

The guy has every right to have an opinion without being mocked, even if it's an unpopular one.

As long as it isn 't about Liefeld.

Tom

03-01-2009, 10:03 AM

The guy has every right to have an opinion without being mocked, even if it's an unpopular one.

Everyone has the right to an opinion; no one has the right to have their opinion taken seriously.

Kevin M.

03-01-2009, 10:03 AM

I haven't seen this stance pop up in a long while.

dingo

03-01-2009, 10:05 AM

I haven't seen this stance pop up in a long while.

Thanks to the sterling work of Buzz Aldrin.

Kevin M.

03-01-2009, 10:07 AM

Thanks to the sterling work of Buzz Aldrin.

Just goes to show you how much a punch to the face can really change things.

OverMaster

03-01-2009, 10:08 AM

Everyone has the right to an opinion; no one has the right to have their opinion taken seriously.

Then in my opinion, that opinion about opinions is laughable and mockable!

You gringos are all just angry because you know you didn't set foot on the Moon! :tongue:

SUPERECWFAN1

03-01-2009, 10:09 AM

Cosmored..... trust no one with this news. This forum could be full of government spies.

DonC

03-01-2009, 10:09 AM

Why would someone join a comic book message board just to post a really long treatise about something that isn't remotely related to comic books?

Unless.... Are you Neal Adams?

Lightbend

03-01-2009, 10:16 AM

I took taking a laser, shining it at the moon, and having that light get reflected off a piece of equipment left there by an Apollo mission to be definitive proof we went to the moon.

Omega Alpha

03-01-2009, 10:38 AM

Oh, yeah? Then how do you explain that:

http://creative.myspacecdn.com/groups/_mcb/mycupojoe/week0309/new.sm.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/Marvelpics/CAPBMI010002.jpg

Cosmored

03-01-2009, 10:43 AM

Ummm, wouldn't the US enemies like the Soviet Union made a such a big deal about the moon landings being fake? I would be interested to know what your educational level is.
Watch this video series about the cold war.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f

Also, read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war. It's in his book "Deterring Democracy".
I have three years of university but I didn't finish.

You gringos are all just angry because you know you didn't set foot on the Moon!
Hey Overmaster-

What do the people in Venezuela think about the alleged moon landings? I'm an American but I live in Spain. About half the people I meet here think they went to the moon. They're pretty informed about American imperialism though.
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=9004

I took taking a laser, shining it at the moon, and having that light get reflected off a piece of equipment left there by an Apollo mission to be definitive proof we went to the moon.

Unmanned craft could have had reflectors attached to their sides. If the Surveyor program was real, they had the technology to land unmanned craft on the moon. Reflectors don't prove there were people on the moon.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html

J. Robb

03-01-2009, 10:45 AM

Oh, yeah? Then how do you explain that:
Is that Dr. Doom and Dracula on a moon date?? That's awesome!

Calybos

03-01-2009, 11:10 AM

You can always rely on the Bad Astronomy site to refute the tinfoil-hatters when it comes to space and science.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

Elegance Liberty

03-01-2009, 11:15 AM

http://i43.tinypic.com/34ih5bd.jpg

Augusto

03-01-2009, 11:24 AM

there is anyone really checking EVERY link he posted? I can't imagine it.

But I sed to have a friend thinking the same.

crazyredlady

03-01-2009, 11:45 AM

hooboy....prepare to have a full on bob rant goin on.....he's a space case:eek:

RolandJP

03-01-2009, 11:47 AM

Of course we went, look at all the pretty stars

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f355/mikewrestler5/Apollo_14_Shepard.jpg

Roquefort Raider

03-01-2009, 11:49 AM

You can always rely on the Bad Astronomy site to refute the tinfoil-hatters when it comes to space and science.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

How can you trust an astronomer over youtube???

Puma

03-01-2009, 11:49 AM

Three posts total, all on this thread, all coming from left field. Interesting start to CBR participation.

Ontir

03-01-2009, 12:05 PM

Every once in awhile, this twaddle shows up again.

Paradox

03-01-2009, 12:07 PM

Interesting? Well, maybe like fleas are interesting.

**scratches**

thehod

03-01-2009, 12:27 PM

I'ts not the moon landings the conspiracy freeks should be worried about.

They should be worried about how NASA covered this up....

http://www.capedwonder.com/images/picture-folder/images/Donner-years/moon/CW-SII-Zod-moon-1.jpg

Bakasama

03-01-2009, 12:47 PM

So is NASA denying our right to kneel before Zod?! Those heathens!

sneggz

03-01-2009, 12:54 PM

Why do you think Kennedy was assassinated? He felt guilty about lying to the American people and was going to come clean about the fake. NASA wasn't having any of that.

There ya go, conspiracy theories work better when you can blame deaths on them.

robertwnielsen

03-01-2009, 01:23 PM

It's hard not to love Buzz isn't it?

After watching him give the conspiracy theorist a left hook to the jaw, no!! :)

Seriously, though, I've heard this "we didn't go to the Moon" crap so many times - like my wife (crazyredlady) said, I've been a "space case" for years, following the space program and what not. So, is the OP prepared to explain what happened to Grissom, White, and Chafee, who died in the 1967 pad fire? <sarcasm> Oh, wait....they were about to blow the whistle on the conspiracy, so they had to be silenced, right? I suppose that means Apollo 13's crew was supposed to have died, also. Remember, they had that oxygen tank blow 200,000 miles from Earth - I wonder whether that was planned, or just a fortunate accident? (For the "Lunar Truthers," anyway)? </sarcasm>

Anyway, don't know whether that is the "full on bob rant" that crazyredlady warned you about, but that's my $.02 worth - yes, we did land on the moon, there were 12 people who walked on it, and the conspiracy holds little or no weight when examined under the light of true science.

Joe Acro

03-01-2009, 01:39 PM

You need to get yourself some Mythbusters.
Well, that first video of his does seem to be a case the Mythbusters didn't address. They proved that the flag could move as long as the astronauts are manipulating the pole. They stated that the myth would remain busted until someone finds footage of it moving without astronaut intervention, which is what that video shows.

Which isn't to say it can't also be explained.

Sir Tim Drake

03-01-2009, 01:44 PM

How can you trust an astronomer over youtube???

Who wants to listen to an astronomer anyway?

WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

dupont2005

03-01-2009, 01:51 PM

Athena Bast

03-01-2009, 02:07 PM

Well, that first video of his does seem to be a case the Mythbusters didn't address. They proved that the flag could move as long as the astronauts are manipulating the pole. They stated that the myth would remain busted until someone finds footage of it moving without astronaut intervention, which is what that video shows.

Which isn't to say it can't also be explained.

Just watched it. It moves when the astronaut is not touching it throughout the vid. It could be just reverb from him skipping around.

Of course, we also have to believe that this video is real footage as well. It could just be someone taking the real audio and putting it over fake footage in order to feed the skeptics.

Cosmored

03-01-2009, 02:10 PM

So, is the OP prepared to explain what happened to Grissom, White, and Chafee, who died in the 1967 pad fire? <sarcasm> Oh, wait....they were about to blow the whistle on the conspiracy, so they had to be silenced, right?
I'm not in a postion to verify anything but that can't be ruled out. Also, don't forget about Thomas Baron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

where does 9/11 and the da vinci code fit into all this?
I don't know anything about the da vinci code but 9/11 was an inside job. Have you watched "9/11 Mysteries", or "Painful Deceptions"?

They can be found in this link.
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

This is good too.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989407671184881047&q=9%2F11

Has anyone seen the evidence that the Chinese space walk was faked in a water tank?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA

NASA's position on this is that it was real.

Joe Acro

03-01-2009, 02:14 PM

Just watched it. It moves when the astronaut is not touching it throughout the vid. It could be just reverb from him skipping around.That would be my guess.

Of course, we also have to believe that this video is real footage as well. It could just be someone taking the real audio and putting it over fake footage in order to feed the skeptics.Yeah. I think I'd want to see it be something other than a YouTube clip before I believe it.

Gilda Dent

03-01-2009, 02:17 PM

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

That we landed on the moon is a fact. Opinion has no bearing on this fact.

Gilda Dent

03-01-2009, 02:19 PM

From my link, regarding the "waving flag":

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!

Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.

Crowforge

03-01-2009, 02:39 PM

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/anim.gif
much as I laughed at this he was wrong to hit the dork.

robertwnielsen

03-01-2009, 03:18 PM

I'm not in a postion to verify anything but that can't be ruled out. Also, don't forget about Thomas Baron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

Um, no. Apollo 1 was caused by "Go Fever," faulty wiring, shoddy workmanship, etc. As to Thomas Baron, it appears that several people doubted his credibility. http://www.clavius.org/baron.html I quote: : It appears some of the committee members have some doubt about Baron's credibility. Their questioning reveals that he has little or no firsthand knowledge about conditions which may have contributed to the fire. Mr. Holmburg testifies that the Baron report is almost entirely hearsay -- Baron himself didn't actually witness the vast majority of what he reported. The deliberations of the committee suggest the primary contribution of Mr. Baron's report to the committee investigation is to provide names of other possible witnesses, not to tell an accurate picture of what was going on at North American. Conspiracists balk at this possibility, but we must face reality. The report was simply not as important -- in the evidentiary sense -- as they say it was. It was not a smoking gun. It was not anything which hadn't already been heard.

thehod

03-01-2009, 03:30 PM

robertwnielsen

03-01-2009, 03:41 PM

Exactly how many people are meant to have been in on this hoax, both in NASA and the government?

10?
100?
1000?

If the government couldn't keep it a secret that a President was gettin his cock sucked by the office help, what on earth makes people think they could keep something like faking the moon landings a secret?

ROTFLMFAO!!! That says it in a nutshell!!!

This crap has been debunked so many times, the real question is is there a conspiracy to keep this shit in the public domain in an attempt to irritate anyone with more than six braincells?Good question.

Matt Algren

03-01-2009, 03:53 PM

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/anim.gif
I always imagined him kissing his fist after that.

Spike-X

03-01-2009, 05:23 PM

The guy has every right to have an opinion

Sure!

without being mocked.

Nah.

Spike-X

03-01-2009, 05:25 PM

much as I laughed at this he was wrong to hit the dork.
The guy basically came out and called the man's biggest achievement a lie. I'd say he had it coming.

howyadoin

03-01-2009, 05:36 PM

What's your stance on the Earth, then? Round, or flat?

Asmith

03-01-2009, 05:51 PM

Here's some stuff that convinced me we never went to the moon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basic physics refutes every part of this derranged fantasy.

It's not an opinion, it's a poor education.

Expletive Deleted

03-01-2009, 05:59 PM

What's your stance on the Earth, then? Round, or flat?Chelonian, clearly.

Guapo Méndez

03-01-2009, 06:02 PM

Yeah we did.

Nah, you didn't.

Mexicans were the first on the moon. Spaceship was made of hemp and the fuel was peyote.

dupont2005

03-01-2009, 06:31 PM

What's your stance on the Earth, then? Round, or flat?

flat of course. the only debate is what shape our tabletop planet is in. my guess is a spade

Gilda Dent

03-01-2009, 06:33 PM

flat of course. the only debate is what shape our tabletop planet is in. my guess is a spade

Well, there's that and whether it's floating in the ether, balanced on the back of a turtle, or held aloft by Atlas.

I'm thinking that it's turtles, turtles all the way down.

Asmith

03-01-2009, 06:34 PM

flat of course. the only debate is what shape our tabletop planet is in. my guess is a spade

I'd go with whatever shape fits most comfortably on the giant cosmic space turtle's back...

Asmith

03-01-2009, 06:35 PM

Well, there's that and whether it's floating in the ether, balanced on the back of a turtle, or held aloft by Atlas.

I'm thinking that it's turtles, turtles all the way down.

okay... I think it may be healthier if we don't share the same thoughts in the future...

Ontir

03-01-2009, 06:36 PM

The guy basically came out and called the man's biggest achievement a lie. I'd say he had it coming.

Yeah, it was SUCH a complete lie, that NASA went to the effort to include Australia in on the prank, because they had the only dish on Earth that could communicate with the astronauts during a part of each day. Good thing those liars are clever!

I think this is just another part of the Republican/Theocrat war on science.

Gilda, I'm sure Flo & Eddie would agree with you. Definitely NOT Beatles!

Michael P

03-01-2009, 06:39 PM

I think this is just another part of the Republican/Theocrat war on science.

Nah, it's a pretty non-denominational heresy. Hell, a lot of these guys are amateur "scientists" themselves (read: guys who think the idea of science is really keen, but haven't bothered to actually learn anything about it).

Asmith

03-01-2009, 06:42 PM

Yeah, it was SUCH a complete lie, that NASA went to the effort to include Australia in on the prank, because they had the only dish on Earth that could communicate with the astronauts during a part of each day. Good thing those liars are clever!

Not 'just' parts of each day, but the signals for that one small step came down to the Aussie dish. Of course peole who think the landings were faked don't have the capacity to realise you can't fake broadcast to a radio telescope without someone (and by 'someone' I mean everyne involved) noticing the signals origin is amazingly off.

Ontir

03-01-2009, 06:43 PM

Asmith

03-01-2009, 06:52 PM

Right. Let's see his re-interpretation of that!

Have you seen the Dish (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0205873/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0205873/)? A great film about an odd little Aussie town drawn into the most daring and noble adventure in human history!

...and it REALLY DID HAPPEN!

All little Aussie towns are odd... Yeh, I've seen bits of that film. It looked good.

The story of Australia's part in the moon landing is a required part of any history class, as I'm sure you can well imagine.

Michael P

03-01-2009, 06:54 PM

All little Aussie towns are odd... Yeh, I've seen bits of that film. It looked good.

The story of Australia's part in the moon landing is a required part of any history class, as I'm sure you can well imagine.

Nary a mention of it over here. But I'm sure that's as expected as well.

Asmith

03-01-2009, 07:01 PM

Nary a mention of it over here. But I'm sure that's as expected as well.

Ha. Well all we did was train a whacking great dish up at the moon and tune in - on-sending the feed to NASA. It's really not as flash as the whole, y'know, strapping guys to a flammin' big rocket part of the venture! So it's not surprising at all it doesn't warrant much more than a footnote. But any country that did a little towards that great venture is going to have some pride in having even the smallest part.

Crowforge

03-01-2009, 07:15 PM

The guy basically came out and called the man's biggest achievement a lie. I'd say he had it coming.

You'd think knowing you went to the moon would be enough comfort. I'd be in jail if I reacted like that to the (much worse) things said to me.

Loren

03-01-2009, 07:22 PM

A couple of years ago there was a documentary, "In the Shadow of the Moon," that interviewed a slew of the astronauts who went to the moon. At the start of the credits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI1mEWp6fZE&feature=related) (at about the 7:35 mark), they had comments from several of them about the conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landing. Michael Collins makes the same point as thehod did here, citing the thousands of people who would've had to have been involved. And another astronauts poses the question that if we *had* faked it, why fake it nine times?

Asmith

03-01-2009, 07:25 PM

You'd think knowing you went to the moon would be enough comfort. I'd be in jail if I reacted like that to the (much worse) things said to me.

The guy walked on the freakin' moon. Taking all of human history with him. I wouldn't have a problem if he KO'd my mother if she called him a liar.

Anyway, I really can't think of a better response to stupid people than belting them one in the kisser! Just think of all the time it saves on unnecessary debate.

Kid Omega

03-01-2009, 08:37 PM

Nary a mention of it over here. But I'm sure that's as expected as well.

There's a scene in the movie THE RIGHT STUFF about it.

Michael P

03-01-2009, 08:46 PM

There's a scene in the movie THE RIGHT STUFF about it.

Haven't seen it. Which, with my aeronautics nerd of a dad, is something of a miracle.

Crowforge

03-01-2009, 08:49 PM

The guy walked on the freakin' moon. Taking all of human history with him. I wouldn't have a problem if he KO'd my mother if she called him a liar.

Anyway, I really can't think of a better response to stupid people than belting them one in the kisser! Just think of all the time it saves on unnecessary debate.

And +1 for Chicago's already sky high murder rate... He actually got picked to go to the moon so that's kind of backward. He should be honored to represent us and we should be happy he didn't screw up.

Gary_B

03-01-2009, 08:49 PM

Like so many good movies, The Right Stuff is based on a great book. This one was written by Tom Wolfe.

Kid Omega

03-01-2009, 08:51 PM

Haven't seen it. Which, with my aeronautics nerd of a dad, is something of a miracle.

You should rent it forthwith.

And like Gary says, the book is PHENOMENAL. Read it right away.

dingo

03-01-2009, 09:14 PM

You'd think knowing you went to the moon would be enough comfort. I'd be in jail if I reacted like that to the (much worse) things said to me.

I'm not so sure about that. Would you press charges if you were in your thirties and a man in his sixties hit you? I'd be embarrassed.

robertwnielsen

03-01-2009, 09:22 PM

I'm not so sure about that. Would you press charges if you were in your thirties and a man in his sixties hit you? I'd be embarrassed.

Like Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder:

"Get my ass kicked by a 60-year old man!" Robert Duvall responds, "59!"

Crowforge

03-01-2009, 09:29 PM

I'm not so sure about that. Would you press charges if you were in your thirties and a man in his sixties hit you? I'd be embarrassed.
As a rule of thumb I don't fight old men. I doubt he'd catch me with that punch and if he did and I didn't hit him back automatically I'd certainly have him arrested and possibly sue him if he had managed to hurt me. It wouldn't be the first time I called the cops on an old hot head.

Asmith

03-01-2009, 09:39 PM

There's a scene in the movie THE RIGHT STUFF about it.

Nice to see you showing a bit of pride in your adopted nation. Good stuff, cobber!

Gary_B

03-01-2009, 09:57 PM

As a rule of thumb I don't fight old men. I doubt he'd catch me with that punch and if he did and I didn't hit him back automatically I'd certainly have him arrested and possibly sue him if he had managed to hurt me. It wouldn't be the first time I called the cops on an old hot head.

As a rule of thumb I just don't fight people. Or need to hit people back. Or call the cops on people. Or have people arrested. Or sue people.

Maybe you're the hot head.

Crowforge

03-01-2009, 10:34 PM

As a rule of thumb I just don't fight people. Or need to hit people back. Or call the cops on people. Or have people arrested. Or sue people.

Maybe you're the hot head.
Oh, I'm naturally super aggressive, I've known this about myself for a long time, so I try to stay mellow and not take things (or myself) too seriously, That's why I avoid fights, especially with fragile old men. It's up to the other guy to take things as far as cops, etc.

Paradox

03-01-2009, 10:41 PM

Gilda Dent scores:

Well, there's that and whether it's floating in the ether, balanced on the back of a turtle, or held aloft by Atlas.

I'm thinking that it's turtles, turtles all the way down.

Heehee! I love a good geek joke! :biggrin:

Gary_B

03-01-2009, 11:00 PM

Oh, I'm naturally super aggressive, I've known this about myself for a long time, so I try to stay mellow and not take things (or myself) too seriously, That's why I avoid fights, especially with fragile old men. It's up to the other guy to take things as far as cops, etc.

I guess that means that Buzz Aldrin wouldn't have felt the need to punch you in the face. The guy in the tiny little bit of footage I can find was definitely provoking him.

Crowforge

03-01-2009, 11:33 PM

Doesn't matter.

Gary_B

03-01-2009, 11:38 PM

Doesn't matter.

I definitely agree.

MacQuarrie

03-02-2009, 01:11 AM

Exactly how many people are meant to have been in on this hoax, both in NASA and the government?

10?
100?
1000?

If the government couldn't keep it a secret that a President was gettin his cock sucked by the office help, what on earth makes people think they could keep something like faking the moon landings a secret?

This crap has been debunked so many times, the real question is is there a conspiracy to keep this shit in the public domain in an attempt to irritate anyone with more than six braincells?
For that matter, consider the fact that the Nixon Administration, with all their jobs, reputations and lives riding on it, despite the threat of prison and worldwide disgrace, could not keep Watergate covered up for more than two weeks.

MacQuarrie

03-02-2009, 02:26 AM

Stupid question: Why does this matter to you so much?

We haven't sent anyone to the moon in over thirty-five years. The Presidents in office during the Apollo program are all dead. Many of the astronauts are dead. A significant portion of the elected officials and bureaucrats who were in office then are either dead or retired. Who exactly is this "news" supposed to impact?

Obviously the real question is about the reputation and character of the US government. Okay, fine. Aren't there enough actual, verifiable examples of government-perpetuated fraud and manipulation to make that point without resorting to conspiracy theories about events that happened half a lifetime ago?

Aside from smearing the reputations of a dozen astronauts who walked on the moon, what difference will it make? Let's pretend for a second that it's true... who gives a shit? The Cold War has been over for 20 years; the world political climate that would have provoked this hoax is long dead. Even if it were true, it still wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Ooooh, the government lies to us! Yeah, so? They always have. There are plenty of real examples of that without inventing more.

Or is it just that you need these conspiracy theories to justify and rationalize your own failures? You can't get ahead because the system is stacked against you, right?

Asmith

03-02-2009, 02:37 AM

We haven't sent anyone to the moon in over thirty-five years. The Presidents in office during the Apollo program are all dead. Many of the astronauts are dead. A significant portion of the elected officials and bureaucrats who were in office then are either dead or retired.

So what you're saying is, that someone is killing off everyone who was involved with the conspiracy!!!

MacQuarrie

03-02-2009, 02:47 AM

So what you're saying is, that someone is killing off everyone who was involved with the conspiracy!!!

Yup. Father Time. He's a mean one.

thehod

03-02-2009, 03:08 AM

Yup. Father Time. He's a mean one.

He ages people just by looking at them

He's Glorith, with a long beard and a walking stick.

Look out for the new 6-issue mini, this summer, from DC.

Asmith

03-02-2009, 04:02 AM

Yup. Father Time. He's a mean one.

Yeah, that's what they want us to believe...

Absolutely ingenious, waiting four decades to slowly kill off all the key players in the conspiracy, making it look like old age and natural causes, to not arouse any suspicion... These guys are good - but they never reckoned on the sheer brain power of the internet to undo all the crafty subterfuge!!

Shellhead

03-02-2009, 07:07 AM

Crowforge

03-02-2009, 07:16 AM

Ooooh, an internet tough guy. We're all terrified, of course.
Yes, because the pinnacle of toughness is calling the cops on old men. Can you even read buddy?

jessecuster3

03-02-2009, 07:18 AM

Someone's been watching Capricorn 1 (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/).

CaptMonkey

03-02-2009, 07:34 AM

*conspiracy theory nonsense deleted in the name of good taste and Buzz Aldrin*

This guy is giving newbies like me a bad name.

thespianphryne

03-02-2009, 07:35 AM

Of course, the moon landing is hoaxed. Are you guys so out of it you don't even realise that we didn't have colour transmission in the '60's?

Spike-X

03-02-2009, 08:07 AM

As a rule of thumb I don't fight old men. I doubt he'd catch me with that punch and if he did and I didn't hit him back automatically I'd certainly have him arrested and possibly sue him if he had managed to hurt me. It wouldn't be the first time I called the cops on an old hot head.

What, you make a habit of going around provoking people into hitting you, then calling the cops on them?

Because, apart from the calling the cops part, this is exactly what that douchebag did.

rick

03-02-2009, 08:32 AM

Of course, the moon landing is hoaxed. Are you guys so out of it you don't even realise that we didn't have colour transmission in the '60's?

Umm, I hate to point this out but American television began broadcasting in color full time in 1965.

rick

03-02-2009, 08:34 AM

much as I laughed at this he was wrong to hit the dork.

I have no problem at all with an 80 year old man laying out some loony punk assualting him at a public gathering like this guy was doing.

rick

03-02-2009, 08:39 AM

As a rule of thumb I don't fight old men. I doubt he'd catch me with that punch and if he did and I didn't hit him back automatically I'd certainly have him arrested and possibly sue him if he had managed to hurt me. It wouldn't be the first time I called the cops on an old hot head.

And who do you really think would have ended up arrested.

You, playing the role of the nut, who actually did lay hands on Buzz before he got decked, or an internationally famous hero?

I'd be willing to make a cash bet it wouldn't be Buzz.

Tadhg

03-02-2009, 08:40 AM

Umm, I hate to point this out but American television began broadcasting in color full time in 1965.

Old Man Trap Sprung!

rick

03-02-2009, 08:41 AM

I definitely agree.

And legally speaking at least, you'd both be wrong.

thespianphryne

03-02-2009, 08:41 AM

Umm, I hate to point this out but American television began broadcasting in color full time in 1965.
Do Not Adjust Your Set (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pPxgeECUw0)

rick

03-02-2009, 08:43 AM

Old Man Trap Sprung!

It was like a little miracle.

One week the only thing in color was Bonanza and the next week EVERYTHING was bright and beautiful.

Guapo Méndez

03-02-2009, 08:45 AM

Heehee! I love a good geek joke! :biggrin:

Good ol' A'tuin.

rick

03-02-2009, 08:45 AM

Do Not Adjust Your Set (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pPxgeECUw0)

Own it on vinyl, now you young punks get off of my yard.

Crowforge

03-02-2009, 09:27 AM

What, you make a habit of going around provoking people into hitting you, then calling the cops on them?

Because, apart from the calling the cops part, this is exactly what that douchebag did.
I'm one of those people you either love or hate. I also apparently look at people the 'wrong way' as that's a consistent complaint though I don't know what it is I'm doing. Also 'you think you tough', I now automatically step out of arms length when I hear that.

Dreadstar

03-02-2009, 09:28 AM

I don't know about you guys, but I've never been to the moon. I can't speak for anyone else, though.

Crowforge

03-02-2009, 09:31 AM

I'd like to go to mars.

dingo

03-02-2009, 09:51 AM

This guy is giving newbies like me a bad name.

He chose CaptMonkey for you?

thehod

03-02-2009, 09:53 AM

I don't know about you guys, but I've never been to the moon. I can't speak for anyone else, though.

There are a few people on this forum who are clearly on another planet though.

Crowforge

03-02-2009, 10:06 AM

the moon isn't a planet.
http://img.timeinc.net/time/time100/2007/images/neil_degrasse_tyson.jpg

BYC

03-02-2009, 10:13 AM

I'd like to go to mars.
I don't want to go to Mars, I want to go to Saturn!

thehod

03-02-2009, 10:21 AM

the moon isn't a planet.

Jeez, there's always one person wanting to point out the flaws in a perfectly reasonable pun.

Crowforge

03-02-2009, 10:22 AM

I don't want to go to Mars, I want to go to Saturn!
Why? I'm afraid of falling into those giant planets, I think I'd go a little crazy being close to something that big.

Jeez, there's always one person wanting to point out the flaws in a perfectly reasonable pun.
Nah, I was just having my own fun with your fun.

CaptMonkey

03-02-2009, 12:54 PM

He chose CaptMonkey for you?

I see what you did there.

jade_nova

03-02-2009, 05:34 PM

What's your stance on the Earth, then? Round, or flat?

The Earth is flat and supported on the back of four elephants who are standing on the back of a giant turtle.

Matt Algren

03-02-2009, 05:35 PM

The Earth is flat and supported on the back of four elephants who are standing on the back of a giant turtle.
Keep reading...

Mike Pothier

03-02-2009, 05:37 PM

Neither, its banana shaped.

Now, if you'll give me a moment, I can explain how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes

Charles RB

03-02-2009, 05:56 PM

BUZZ ALDRIN PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo)!

I am glad this thread was made just so I got to see that video.

I have three years of university but I didn't finish.

Unsurprising.

If the government couldn't keep it a secret that a President was gettin his cock sucked by the office help, what on earth makes people think they could keep something like faking the moon landings a secret?

You've hit on the flaw in most conspiracy theories.

(Also sci-fi stories - UNIT and the government covering up aliens my arse, there'd be a thousand phone-camera shots of Daleks and Mike Yates would've sold a tell-all story to the Sun.)

Paradox

03-02-2009, 08:09 PM

Dreadstar takes a poll:

I don't know about you guys, but I've never been to the moon. I can't speak for anyone else, though.

I wonder if Alice ever made it there.

BANG! ZOOM! :wink:

Paradox

03-02-2009, 08:12 PM

Ground Control to Major Tom
Ground Control to Major Tom
Take your protein pills and put your helmet on

Ground Control to Major Tom
Commencing countdown, engines on
Check ignition and may God's love be with you

Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, One, Liftoff

This is Ground Control to Major Tom
You've really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear
Now it's time to leave the capsule if you dare

"This is Major Tom to Ground Control
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating in a most peculiar way
And the stars look very different today

For here
Am I sitting in a tin can
Far above the world
Planet Earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do

Though I'm past one hundred thousand miles
I'm feeling very still
And I think my spaceship knows which way to go
Tell my wife I love her very much she knows"

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you....

"Here am I floating round my tin can
Far above the Moon
Planet Earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do."

Cosmored

03-03-2009, 09:53 AM

Post #66
A couple of years ago there was a documentary, "In the Shadow of the Moon," that interviewed a slew of the astronauts who went to the moon. At the start of the credits (at about the 7:35 mark), they had comments from several of them about the conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landing. Michael Collins makes the same point as thehod did here, citing the thousands of people who would've had to have been involved. And another astronauts poses the question that if we *had* faked it, why fake it nine times?
I posted some hoax evidence in the comment section of the video you mentioned. I also posted in part 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI1mEWp6fZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRusDqEK4aI

Two hours later the posts were gone. Censorship is only necessary when a lie is being defended. If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.

Here's something else.

I'm not taking a stand on this one but there is a theory that NASA has faked at least some of the missions to Mars. Here's some stuff about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH7vN3oO1Zw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlUPnNiG81k
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=rM0bHAXsRio
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=nHdvAiz8yUw
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNbnXmV1CQ
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=-J_cMoQ_SzE
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKX9WPpWRg

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=0RgmjDJdvV0

I don't rule it out considering all the other lies the government tells us. I don't have the science background to verify anything though so I'm going to sit on the fence. If it turns out that they weren't faked, I won't be disappointed. I'll be happy.

Dreadstar

03-03-2009, 09:57 AM

I think the only conspiracy theory I believe in is that the reason the price of gas was so high over the past two years was so that Bush could get millions in kick-back from his profit-whoring buds in Big Oil.

...what?

Ray R.

03-03-2009, 10:26 AM

And another astronauts poses the question that if we *had* faked it, why fake it nine times?

They probably consulted with my ex-wife. She says she faked it every time.

StoneGold

03-03-2009, 10:32 AM

I never went to Cancun.

Or Rangoon.

Or even Saskatchatoon.

jessecuster3

03-03-2009, 10:46 AM

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/roryculkin_joaquinphoenix_abigailbreslin_signs.jpg

Asmith

03-03-2009, 11:06 AM

Two hours later the posts were gone. Censorship is only necessary when a lie is being defended. If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.

That's not censorship. That's peoples low threshold for putting up with stupidity.

Oh, and why don't you follow your own advice, and accept that every aspect of this kook in a madhouse theory is entirely disproven with basic physics. It has no merit. At all.

It's good to have a questioning nature. You've questioned. You've been answered. There are a multitude of very good websites out there that explain in simple terms why you look like a bowl of fruit loops for advancing this fantasy. 'Bad Astronomy' is one excellent site.

But if you insist to cling to ignorance in the face of an easily accessible education on the matter, then you are not misguided, you are not open-minded, you're not insightful, you are just a simpleton. Run of the mill, ordinary, plain old simpleton.

Ontir

03-03-2009, 02:49 PM

Post #66

I posted some hoax evidence in the comment section of the video you mentioned. I also posted in part 1.

Two hours later the posts were gone. Censorship is only necessary when a lie is being defended. If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.

That's not censorship, it's a glitch in the system. It happens to me with some regularity. There's no need to censor your horse$#!+, because that's just what it is. Occam's Razor, applied to the scale of what you purport to be a lie should eliminate all your doubt. The thousands of people at NASA, the people building all the Apollo equipment, etc. The astronomers in Australia, the actual astronauts, not to mention their families (Most astronauts got divorced. If there was a lie there, pissed off exes would've spilled long ago!) could not all be "in on the lie" and maintain it all for this bloody long.

I don't know why this crap persists, or why you felt the need to fling this crap here, but it's time to wake up and stop.

Paul McEnery

03-03-2009, 03:34 PM

I never went to Cancun.

Or Rangoon.

Or even Saskatchatoon.

But did you spoon with your honey in June?

OzBat!

03-03-2009, 05:38 PM

The Bad Astronomy (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) site addressing all the hoax believers points.

MacQuarrie

03-03-2009, 05:45 PM

Post #66

I posted some hoax evidence in the comment section of the video you mentioned. I also posted in part 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI1mEWp6fZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRusDqEK4aI

Two hours later the posts were gone. Censorship is only necessary when a lie is being defended. If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.
Deleting a post is not censorship. Preventing you from posting it in the first place would be censorship.

If you want to put up yet another whackjob website explaining how this utterly impossible conspiracy occurred, nobody would stop you or take down your site. If you wanted to write and publish a book or newsletter about it and mail it out to people or hand it out on the corner, nobody would stop you. But posting it on somebody else's site is another thing entirely. In that case, it's not censorship, it's janitorial service.

As a Supreme Court justice once said, "freedom of the press means you have the right to own one." The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to make people listen.

Guapo Méndez

03-03-2009, 06:04 PM

Mike Pothier

03-03-2009, 06:07 PM

What amazes me is the time and effort they take to scrutinize a few grainy pictures and films, yet they can't put the same effort into learning the actual sciences behind what put man on the moon.

Donald M.

03-03-2009, 07:24 PM

That's not censorship. That's peoples low threshold for putting up with stupidity.

I think trying to imagine how stupid something has to be to get deleted from a YouTube comment page just broke my brain.

Paul McEnery

03-03-2009, 07:54 PM

I think trying to imagine how stupid something has to be to get deleted from a YouTube comment page just broke my brain.

It pleases me. I think we've found the Planck length for stupidity.

Jmorphman

03-04-2009, 12:32 AM

Most astronauts got divorced.
That sounds pretty interesting. Any idea why it's so common?

Paradox

03-04-2009, 12:33 AM

Stressful job. Married to their careers. Long hours away from home.

It's not a Sherlock Holmes mystery.

Asmith

03-04-2009, 12:51 AM

Stressful job. Married to their careers. Long hours away from home.

It's not a Sherlock Holmes mystery.

And don't forget the never ending conga line of blonde bar sluts all wanting to mount the astronauts rocket. Either that or it's a conspiracy...

thehod

03-04-2009, 01:49 AM

Stressful job. Married to their careers. Long hours away from home.

Plus their continued insistance on snogging the green chick.

Mermaid

03-04-2009, 03:19 AM

green chicks and bar sluts? I musta missed a few pages..

Asmith

03-04-2009, 03:25 AM

green chicks and bar sluts? I musta missed a few pages..

Well any thread that starts of with 'Hi, I've no cognetive reasoning facilities' will get around to slutty green women who like to drink at some point...

Mermaid

03-04-2009, 03:27 AM

Well any thread that starts of with 'Hi, I've no cognetive reasoning facilities' will get around to slutty green women who like to drink at some point...

Some people make very strange first posts.....although I suppose a conspiracy theory beats "hi i'm new" any day of the week.

Asmith

03-04-2009, 03:29 AM

Some people make very strange first posts.....although I suppose a conspiracy theory beats "hi i'm new" any day of the week.

Yeah, with 'hi, I'm new' you just never know what you're getting with the new poster...

worstblogever

03-04-2009, 06:26 AM

Crowforge

03-04-2009, 06:50 AM

Wait, can't you grab a telescope in an observatory, point it at the moon, and actually see where the moon landing took place, and see the junk the astronauts left behind there?

That sounds like proof enough to me.
I've been wanting to do just that but I'm broke, still you'd think the russians would have done this... or are they part of the conspiracy?!? Dun Duh Dunnnn!!!

Loren

03-04-2009, 07:09 AM

It's laughable that the only thing they have to claim it was a hoax are interpretations of pictures.

How many people worked in the project? Hundreds? Thousands? You're telling me there's not a disgruntled employee in the bunch that could collect a pretty penny from exposing the truth?

Yep, there is no disgruntled employee exposing the hoax because there is no hoax to expose.

And since the conspiracy apparently also involves the murder of four astronauts, you'd expect at least one somebody to have a pang of guilt that would compel some public confession.

thehod

03-04-2009, 07:18 AM

And since the conspiracy apparently also involves the murder of four astronauts, you'd expect at least one somebody to have a pang of guilt that would compel some public confession.

Oh no. This is NASA and the Government we're talking about, and everyone who works for them clearly has hearts of stone.

Of Stone!

Cosmored

03-04-2009, 08:05 AM

The Bad Astronomy site addressing all the hoax believers points.
http://www.bautforum.com/

http://www.clavius.org/
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi
(Clavius forum)

Both the Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites are government damage-control sites. All the regular pro-Apollo posters on those sites know the moon missions were faked.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of people who make false and idiotic claims about Apollo pictures. They thus provide debunkers with much needed food.
Without this debunker food, they would have to address the real issues, something which they would rather avoid. These issues include:
Lack of star pictures,
Missing technical data,
Reliability issues.
But these are "soft" issues, that is, issues involving expected human behavior. In a topic as controversial as the Apollo program, only hard technical arguments have sufficient convincing power. Here are such issues:
Radiation,
Missing landing blast crater,
Missing sound,
Instantaneous craft kinematics.
Contrary to what a quick glance might lead you to believe, debunker sites such as Clavius do not properly address those issues. When they face debunker food or legitimate errors on the part of hoax theorists, they make well-reasoned arguments and show all their technical knowledge in a pedagogical manner.
Yet, strangely, on those above issues, their responses are not in line with what their competence as displayed in other answers might lead us to expect. They lack technical details and are instead full of handwaving, appeals to authority and fallacious reasoning, such as relying on NASA-provided measured radiation doses to prove that the passage thru the belts was not dangerous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone tries to post something that the regular pro-Apollo posters at Bad Astronomy can't handle, the post won't appear. A note will appear that says "This post must be approved by moderators before it can appear" and then the post will never appear.

Anyway, before they started using that tactic to keep control over the direction debates take, I got banned there.

I was posting there under the name "David C". Look at the last post of this page on which the moderator closed the thread.

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-39.html#post893592
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Since David C did not answer the questions that were asked of him (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=891474), it is clear that this thread is not in which people are responding to each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

Here's the post with the questions asked of me.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-37.html#post891474

Here's where I answered them.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-38.html#post892498

The moderator closed the thread giving the reason that I hadn't answered the questions when I had in fact answered them so I started another thread on the subject.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/52326-9-11-inside-job.html

They closed that thread before a healthy discussion could even get started. I started another thread to complain about it.
http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/52393-some-pretty-low-tactics.html

That's what got me banned there. Shortly after that they decided to limit discussion in the conspiracy theory section to space and astronomy.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/52887-new-change-conspiracy-theory-section-only-space-astronomy.html

Evidently they couldn't try to discrediting the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without looking silly so they decided to just discontinue talking about it.

Here's another case where the moderator closed a thread because his people couldn't discredit the theory without looking silly.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html

I think it's safe to say that "Bad Astronomy" is a government damage-control site that is not dedicated to truth, but to obfuscate truth.

I got banned for 30 days at Clavius for using non-Apollo info to further my argument that Apollo was a hoax.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=971&page=1
(see reply 33)

I continued the topic in the "Conspiracy theory" section instead of the "Hoax theory" section in the hope that they would let me speak freely.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1575

As you can see by reading the thread, they closed it because they couldn't discredit the topic without looking silly.

There are forums on which the moderators use their power to control the direction debates take and Clavius and Bad Astronomy are prime examples. This kind of control is only necessary when a lie is being defended as when there is free debate, a false argument will fall by its own lack of merit and no control over what the other side is allowed to say is necessary.

Here's something else that's interesting.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA

The official US version of the Chinese space walk is that it was real when it was obviously faked in a water tank.

Look at the piece of paper that comes out of the hatch in this clip from the Chinese space walk.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
(00:12 time mark)

The piece of paper comes up, hits the side of the hatch, stops, and then starts moving again. This is inconsistent with zero-G in a vacuum and consistent with water current.

The fact that NASA's position is that this footage was taken in space totally destroys it's credibility.

jessecuster3

03-04-2009, 08:24 AM

Ok seriously, what the fuck?

Why are you bringing this shit to a comic book message board? Go find some other tin foil hat wearing site and peddle this garbage.

Dreadstar

03-04-2009, 08:28 AM

He's a missionary, jesse. Spread the word and all that.

jessecuster3

03-04-2009, 08:29 AM

He's a missionary, jesse. Spread the word and all that.

Its spam, he needs to be banned.

Brian, get on the stick here.

Puma

03-04-2009, 08:31 AM

People are responding to him so he'll keep it up. Ignore the thread it goes away, he goes away.

Charles RB

03-04-2009, 08:31 AM

Oh no. This is NASA and the Government we're talking about, and everyone who works for them clearly has hearts of stone.

Of Stone!

The Black Knight is a secret NASA agent in MI-13?! :eek:

Perry Holley

03-04-2009, 09:48 AM

He's a missionary, jesse. I personally prefer the term 'Internet Street Preacher' for this sort of personality.

jessecuster3

03-04-2009, 09:49 AM

Stop posting in here!

Crowforge

03-04-2009, 09:51 AM

I prefer doggy...

Asmith

03-04-2009, 05:04 PM

People are responding to him so he'll keep it up. Ignore the thread it goes away, he goes away.

Crazy man off his meds... can't look away...too funny to watch him flail about...!

Ha. This thread is like a carnival's side show alley. You just have to pause and encourage the gimp to bite a head off another chicken...

Wait a second Puma... you seem very eager for all of us not to pay any attention to these revelation posts... you're not part of the US government's global conspiracy are you? A sleeper agent put on these boards on just the off-chance that the truth would ever be posted here...?? Hey, what's that black helicopter doing over my house...

howyadoin

03-04-2009, 05:07 PM

Hey, what's that black helicopter doing over my house...The library police. You got any overdue books?

mikekerr3

03-04-2009, 05:46 PM

Umm, I hate to point this out but American television began broadcasting in color full time in 1965.

The tech existed in the 50's,

mikekerr3

03-04-2009, 05:53 PM

Wait, can't you grab a telescope in an observatory, point it at the moon, and actually see where the moon landing took place, and see the junk the astronauts left behind there?

That sounds like proof enough to me.

What telescope is that good, and what magic wand do you wave to get the atmospheric dust and turbulence out of the way to see something that small that far away?

Cosmored

03-06-2009, 05:14 AM

Wait, can't you grab a telescope in an observatory, point it at the moon, and actually see where the moon landing took place, and see the junk the astronauts left behind there?

That sounds like proof enough to me.
From what I've read there's no telescope big enough to see the landing sites with enough resolution to verify anything from earth or earth orbit. A telescope in lunar orbit could do it. Anyway, pictures can be faked so any pictures released by NASA of the lunar landing sites may or may not be faked so they won't be conclusive proof of anything. They also, won't make the evidence of a hoax go away.

You people aren't being very objective about the evidence presented in post #1 of this thread. You're ridiculing it, but you're not debunking it. Maybe this is the explanation.

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paradox

03-06-2009, 05:17 AM

Cosmored basically calls US the nut jobs?:

You people aren't being very objective about the evidence presented in post #1 of this thread. You're ridiculing it, but you're not debunking it.

We don't need to. It's been done and done and done and done years and years ago. Ridicule is all that's left and all it deserves.

Crowforge

03-06-2009, 05:46 AM

From what I've read there's no telescope big enough to see the landing sites with enough resolution to verify anything from earth or earth orbit. A telescope in lunar orbit could do it. Anyway, pictures can be faked so any pictures released by NASA of the lunar landing sites may or may not be faked so they won't be conclusive proof of anything. They also, won't make the evidence of a hoax go away.

You people aren't being very objective about the evidence presented in post #1 of this thread. You're ridiculing it, but you're not debunking it. Maybe this is the explanation.

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The burden of proof is on you actually and the fact you won't accept nasa data tells you you're the one with cognitive dissonance. Also, all of your posts have been in this topic. Being as gentle as I can, I'd say you have an agenda, what I honestly think would get me banned.

Asmith

03-06-2009, 06:03 AM

You people aren't being very objective about the evidence presented in post #1 of this thread. You're ridiculing it, but you're not debunking it.

Listen dude, several people have suggested you checkout badastronomy.com for all the debunking ever needed. What more did you want us to do? All the answers to the crazy ideas you've latched onto are there. That's more than enough.

And to your credit, you did go check it out. And faced with sane, rational explanations to the queries you've adopted, based on science and common-sense, you accused the site of being a NASA/Government conspiracy dis-information front(!!).

So we have debunked these crazed rantings of other people that you're spouting. Completely and fully. You just have your hands over your ears, going 'Lalalalalala'.

Which leaves the rest of us only two options - ridicule you or encourage you to go back on your meds. Unsurprisingly we chose ridicule. But feel free to take your meds as well.

thehod

03-06-2009, 06:13 AM

And to your credit, you did go check it out. And faced with sane, rational explanations to the queries you've adopted, based on science and common-sense, you accused the site of being a NASA/Government conspiracy dis-information front(!!).

Silly Asmith. Don't you know its not just a conspiracy to fool us all into thinking we landed on the moon, its also to stop the Crusaders For Truth, Justice and Tin Foil Hats™ from posting on message boards too.

Its not paranoia if they're really after you.

Mermaid

03-06-2009, 06:18 AM

*adjusts tin foil hat*

well i'm safe..... *checks my doors are locked*

Puma

03-06-2009, 06:54 AM

The burden of proof is on you actually and the fact you won't accept nasa data tells you you're the one with cognitive dissonance. Also, all of your posts have been in this topic. Being as gentle as I can, I'd say you have an agenda, what I honestly think would get me banned.

that he is an absolute nutjob?

jessecuster3

03-06-2009, 06:58 AM

Oh man, he is exactly right, I have seen the light. The moon landing is all a hoax.

Congratulations, you converted 1 person, now why don't you go fuck off to another site.

Asmith

03-06-2009, 07:10 AM

Oh man, he is exactly right, I have seen the light. The moon landing is all a hoax.

Congratulations, you converted 1 person, now why don't you go fuck off to another site.

But now we have to organise an intervention for you!!

Loren

03-06-2009, 07:12 AM

Gary_B

03-06-2009, 12:18 PM

http://www.bautforum.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of people who make false and idiotic claims about Apollo pictures. They thus provide debunkers with much needed food.

No food for you here. Move along now.

StoneGold

03-06-2009, 12:37 PM

Oh, and for the record, it's pretty much a false statement to say that "many" Apollo astronauts have died. Of the 12 men who walked on the moon, 9 are still alive. Of the 14 men who flew around the moon but didn't land, 11 are alive.

Yeah, but only as a message to the others to keep silent.

Slam_Bradley

03-06-2009, 12:49 PM

jade_nova

03-06-2009, 01:00 PM

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you've convinced me that we never landed on the moon. You haven't, but let's say you have. So what? I still have to go to work every week. My kids still need food, clothing, shelter, comfort. I still have to pay my taxes. My car still runs the same way. East is east and west is west.

You haven't changed my life in any way. So why the crusade?

Because he is a crazy person. He reminds me of a guy that I saw on the person who believes this and all sorts of crazy conspiracies.

Mike Pothier

03-06-2009, 01:02 PM

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you've convinced me that we never landed on the moon. You haven't, but let's say you have. So what? I still have to go to work every week. My kids still need food, clothing, shelter, comfort. I still have to pay my taxes. My car still runs the same way. East is east and west is west.

You haven't changed my life in any way. So why the crusade?

Then he moves onto 9/11.

Once thats been "proven" to be a conspiracy, probably the Kennedy assassination. Then something else. Tin-foils always need something to shake their fists at, otherwise they realize how boring their social life is.

Puma

03-06-2009, 01:18 PM

Tin-foils always need something to shake their fists at, otherwise they realize how boring their social life is.
what social life?

Mike Pothier

03-06-2009, 01:21 PM

Precisely.

Roquefort Raider

03-06-2009, 01:35 PM

Most conspiracy theories assign a kind-of logical motive to the alleged perpetrators: for example, many 9/11 denialists think that the event gave the government an excuse to implement measures that would have been extremely unpopular otherwise.

The conspiracy theory that claims the US government has a flying saucer stashed somewhere and lies about it makes sense if we admit that it is being reverse engineered, and that it is a source of secret technological advancement that will change our lives (like the Segway, eh?). There are no facts to bear it out, but at least one can understand why such a secret would be maintained.

But why in the world would several thousand people from several countries and allegiances fake nine moon landings? Sure, I suppose a government could try to promote its own image by faking an extraordinary achievement. But why nine moon landings? Why not just one? And if an encore is required to convince naysayers, why not stop at three or four? Let's not forget that the more the pretense goes on, the more likely someone will slip and let the cat out of the bag. And why not fake a Mars landing instead of an 8th or a 9th voyage to the moon? That would have been even more spectacular.

More to the point, why did foreign governments, even hostile ones, heck, even enemy ones during the cold war, go along with the deception? The Russians would have loved nothing more than burst the US's bubble and show that nobody had gone to the moon. I guess that despite all their anti-US propaganda, they thought going along with the Man On The Moon deceit was somehow more important than making their old opponent look bad.

As many already pointed out, the president of the United States can't get one person to keep quiet about a tryst in the oval office. How are we supposed to believe that thousands and thousands of astronomers and technicians, politicians and engineers, public relation people and all their spouses, and that from many different places, all kept quiet about something? And about something that nobody can really profit from? That is what boggles the mind, really, not the fact that we achieved something that is technically challenging, but not that hard to do from a conceptual viewpoint.

mikekerr3

03-06-2009, 01:59 PM

Most conspiracy theorist vastly overestimate both the power and the compitence in goverment and the corporations, mostly from being too lazy or stupid to find out how those groups actaully work.

To hide the Moon landing would have required thousands of people working on it to all keep silent for decades, it would alo require the subornation of thousands of radio amateurs who followed the flight with directional antennas, It would also require the subornation of all the people who have bounced a laser off the reflector placed there as a lab demonstration. All of those people would have to keep silent, and thats a bit far fetched at the least, The goverment is actually pretty bad at keeping secrets on crimes.

The 250 mile Van Allen belt limitation is for long term flights into space due to Solar Flares, and that has been solved by tricks that original showed up in Science fiction Stories using Spacecraft geometry and a shielded compartment to hide in during the particle wave that follows a flare. Apollo was a bet that they could get there and back without hitting a major flare, something that does not happen without warning very often.

If you notice the Moon landing kooks are really short on scientific credentials and rely on the idea that if the facts don't match their notions "THEY" are manipulating the facts. Something like the flat earth people or people who believe the world was created 4500 years ago.

Roquefort Raider

03-06-2009, 02:16 PM

If you notice the Moon landing kooks are really short on scientific credentials and rely on the idea that if the facts don't match their notions "THEY" are manipulating the facts. Something like the flat earth people or people who believe the world was created 4500 years ago.

Whenever the subject of the similar "evolution hoax conspiracy" comes up, I feel quite let down by my fellow conspirators... I am never invited to the annual evolution conspiracy picnic. What's the point in being a part of a conspiracy if no perks come with it? Hmph!!!

Michael P

03-06-2009, 02:18 PM

Whenever the subject of the similar "evolution hoax conspiracy" comes up, I feel quite let down by my fellow conspirators... I am never invited to the annual evolution conspiracy picnic. What's the point in being a part of a conspiracy if no perks come with it? Hmph!!!

Would this be the conspiracy of which every step has been painstakingly documented in 150 years' worth of scientific journals?

Roquefort Raider

03-06-2009, 02:57 PM

Would this be the conspiracy of which every step has been painstakingly documented in 150 years' worth of scientific journals?

Pretty much, yeah, and which continues to this day to be the basis of modern biology. (That shows how deep the conspiracy reaches. Mother Nature herself is a part of it)!

4thHorseman

03-06-2009, 03:11 PM

Pretty much, yeah, and which continues to this day to be the basis of modern biology. (That shows how deep the conspiracy reaches. Mother Nature herself is a part of it)!

I don't know. I think evolution may very well exist. However, I think they are lying to us about who we came from.

The Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant)

I don't care what anyone says. I know the truth.

Spike-X

03-06-2009, 03:25 PM

Most conspiracy theories assign a kind-of logical motive to the alleged perpetrators: for example, many 9/11 denialists think that the event gave the government an excuse to implement measures that would have been extremely unpopular otherwise.

What, you're saying it didn't?

I don't believe it was an 'inside job', as the 9/11 Truth nutbags claim. I'd be surprised, though, if one could have heard oneself talk in the White House over the sound of champagne corks popping* on September 12th, 2001.

* sheer hyperbole

Tommy

03-06-2009, 03:45 PM

Obviously the moon landing was faked nine times to distract Americans from the nine times aliens from the great celestial sphere (Heliocentric theory is just a conspiracy) met with the descendants of the ancient Aztecs and Egyptians in New Atlantis.

Paul McEnery

03-06-2009, 03:51 PM

Rabid Trekkie

03-06-2009, 11:12 PM

Anyway, pictures can be faked so any pictures released by NASA of the lunar landing sites may or may not be faked so they won't be conclusive proof of anything. They also, won't make the evidence of a hoax go away.

So you won't believe testimony from astronauts or people who work at NASA (which barely has enough of a budget to keep the shuttles in working order much less fund an interplanetary cover up) or scientists who can give rational answers to your questions and now we can't trust pictures because they can be faked.

What is anyone left with then? Do we have to wait for cheap tickets to the lunar surface to convince you? I mean by this reasoning I can prove that Bush is still in office. I mean after all the secret service works for him, the media is being threatened by him to make the world believe that some fictional character named Obama is running the show. You can't trust pictures or video because they just edited some black guy over W.'s image, and since its unlikely I'll be allowed into the White House to see for myself I have to be right.

Asmith

03-06-2009, 11:23 PM

So you won't believe testimony from astronauts or people who work at NASA (which barely has enough of a budget to keep the shuttles in working order much less fund an interplanetary cover up) or scientists who can give rational answers to your questions and now we can't trust pictures because they can be faked.

What is anyone left with then? Do we have to wait for cheap tickets to the lunar surface to convince you? I mean by this reasoning I can prove that Bush is still in office. I mean after all the secret service works for him, the media is being threatened by him to make the world believe that some fictional character named Obama is running the show. You can't trust pictures or video because they just edited some black guy over W.'s image, and since its unlikely I'll be allowed into the White House to see for myself I have to be right.
Congratulations, I think you just wrote the next Will Smith, Summer blockbuster 'that makes you think'!!

Crowforge

03-07-2009, 05:12 AM

Cei-U!

03-07-2009, 07:42 AM

Anyone named "Cosmored" is obviously part of a Communist disinformation campaign intended to deprive America of the credit for the greatest scientific spanking we ever handed the Sovs.

Hey, if he can push a ridiculous, indefensible "theory," so can I.

Cei-U!
I summon the equal time!

Paradox

03-07-2009, 07:48 AM

"Hoaxing moon landings? Inwented in Russia."

http://www.starfleet-knights.com/Pictures/PavelChekov2267.jpg

sneggz

03-07-2009, 10:20 AM

where does 9/11 and the da vinci code fit into all this?

Lets see....

Da Vinci Code answers are on the moon, so they won't let us go there. And..... i'm not sure how to tie 9/11 in.

Michael P

03-07-2009, 10:24 AM

Lets see....

Da Vinci Code answers are on the moon, so they won't let us go there. And..... i'm not sure how to tie 9/11 in.

You don't seriously believe humans hijacked those planes, do you?

Asmith

03-07-2009, 10:39 AM

Lets see....

Da Vinci Code answers are on the moon, so they won't let us go there. And..... i'm not sure how to tie 9/11 in.

They were hiding the truth about the moon landings in the World Trade Center and a university professor was just getting too damn close...

sneggz

03-07-2009, 10:46 AM

They were hiding the truth about the moon landings in the World Trade Center and a university professor was just getting too damn close...
Said university professor was going to squeal to Bin Laden. So the governemnt hijacked the planes and blew up the WTC. Then used an LMD of Bin Laden to claim it.

That way no one would believe Bin Laden that he had proof the moon landing was faked.

Uhoh. I think we know the truth now.

Alex Scott

03-07-2009, 09:30 PM

Well, fortunately somebody recovered Rorshach's journal, or else we'd never know the truth.

Cosmored

03-08-2009, 09:23 AM

You people haven't said anything that makes the evidence of a hoax go away. Take a look at this.

This is some pretty clear evidence of photo manipulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdzNSXDaRI
(1:35 time mark)

There is some pretty good evidence of wire supports to simulate lunar gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
(1:02 time mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

You people say that someone would have come forward by now. If someone were to make a deathbed statement or try to make a public statement, the press wouldn't report it.
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif

Also, it would be downright dangerous for someone to come forward. Look what happened to Thomas Baron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

You people have condescending attitudes but you're not saying anything substantial.

Crowforge

03-08-2009, 10:41 AM

Because I was bored I looked at one of the wire evidence videos.
Why would they use shiny wire with bright light? With the blackness of space the obvious choice would be matte black fishing line. Why if they doctored the film would they leave that in? There's no reason.

The Black Guardian

03-08-2009, 10:57 AM

You people haven't said anything that makes the evidence of a hoax go away. Take a look at this.

This is some pretty clear evidence of photo manipulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdzNSXDaRI
(1:35 time mark)
Due to the fact that such pictures are created from numerous smaller pictures, spliced together. This is technically a type of photo manip. Suggestive of hoax? Not in the slightest.

There is some pretty good evidence of wire supports to simulate lunar gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
(1:02 time mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
Reflection from the astronauts' antennae.

StoneGold

03-08-2009, 11:50 AM

You people have condescending attitudes but you're not saying anything substantial.

What do you mean you people?

Huh?

Athena Bast

03-08-2009, 12:12 PM

This thread is starting to remind me of that episode of CSI with Ally Sheedy and Enrico Colantoni with the conspiracy that everyone in a position of power in the world is actually reptilian.

"V" was not a fictional story people!! It was designed by the reptilians to hide the truth of their existance!

Gary_B

03-08-2009, 01:36 PM

You people haven't said anything that makes the evidence of a hoax go away. Take a look at this.

This is some pretty clear evidence of photo manipulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdzNSXDaRI
(1:35 time mark).

I watched that one and I really, really love the conclusion where they suggest that the photo manipulations were done to hide the fact that they saw space aliens up there. Comedy gold, that is. And as an added bonus hiding evidence of space aliens is about a likely as faking the entire Apollo program.

I don't find it all that sinister that the first photo they discuss has duplication in the foreground details. The information in those images is laid down in strips and somebody duplicated a couple. That is called a mistake, not a conspiracy.

howyadoin

03-08-2009, 01:42 PM

Athena Bast

03-08-2009, 01:57 PM

I watched that one and I really, really love the conclusion where they suggest that the photo manipulations were done to hide the fact that they saw space aliens up there. Comedy gold, that is. And as an added bonus hiding evidence of space aliens is about a likely as faking the entire Apollo program.

I don't find it all that sinister that the first photo they discuss has duplication in the foreground details. The information in those images is laid down in strips and somebody duplicated a couple. That is called a mistake, not a conspiracy.

I love that at one point when he's talking about the 360 panorama shot. "The lander should be here. I know where it should be if it was there."

Um, how about behind the person taking the pictures? The cameraperson not wanting the structure to obscure the lunar landscape would obviously stand in front of the module. When you drive out to the Grand Canyon do make sure your car is in the photo when you take a picture?

The Black Guardian

03-08-2009, 01:57 PM

Puma

03-08-2009, 02:32 PM

I love that at one point when he's talking about the 360 panorama shot. "The lander should be here. I know where it should be if it was there."

Um, how about behind the person taking the pictures? The cameraperson not wanting the structure to obscure the lunar landscape would obviously stand in front of the module. When you drive out to the Grand Canyon do make sure your car is in the photo when you take a picture?

Logic has no place in this thread.

Athena Bast

03-08-2009, 02:36 PM

Logic has no place in this thread.

I know but every once in a while my lil brain cries out to help and the internet whispers back "No".

Jared H.

03-08-2009, 06:14 PM

Let me guess: for his next trick, he denies the Holocaust ever happened.

Asmith

03-08-2009, 06:53 PM

Let me guess: for his next trick, he denies the Holocaust ever happened.

Jeez I'd like to think that there was a very wide gap between 'lunar conspiracy nut' and 'Nazi loving bigot'... just saying one doesn't equate to the other.

Unless you're talking about the Moon Holocaust...

Jared H.

03-08-2009, 07:19 PM

Jeez I'd like to think that there was a very wide gap between 'lunar conspiracy nut' and 'Nazi loving bigot'... just saying one doesn't equate to the other.

Unless you're talking about the Moon Holocaust...

I have seen conspiracy theorists who didn't care for the Nazis that still deny the Holocaust.

I was partly trying to point out that there is simply an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the Holocaust and Moon landing being real, as well as acknowledging the popularity of both conspiracy theories.

The rest of the reason was, admittedly, a jab at the poster.

Charles RB

03-08-2009, 08:18 PM

You people haven't said anything that makes the evidence of a hoax go away.

You are clearly ignoring what people have said then.

Which begs the question of why you're here.

Asmith

03-08-2009, 08:23 PM

You are clearly ignoring what people have said then.

Which begs the question of why you're here.

I'm thinking that he's part of an international conspiracy to lower the over-all IQ of mankind and make us plump lazy fodder for the on-coming alien feeding frenzy... but that's just my non-scientific yet completely true and rational viewpoint.

MacQuarrie

03-08-2009, 11:51 PM

You people have condescending attitudes but you're not saying anything substantial.
Okay, you want substantial? Here goes...

I've been a graphic designer and professional artist for 30 years. I've taken classes in airbrush painting, and have used Photoshop professionally for several hours a day, five days a week for almost 20 years. Prior to that, I ran a stat camera, did product photography, and have done photo retouching professionally. I took four semesters of photography in college and know my way around a darkroom. Can you say the same?

You people haven't said anything that makes the evidence of a hoax go away. Take a look at this.
Let's see if we can't rectify that.

This is some pretty clear evidence of photo manipulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdzNSXDaRI
(1:35 time mark)
This example is utterly irrelevant. He's reviewing photos from a book, not actual photos from NASA. At the 1:35 mark, the speaker is showing areas where a photo was (badly and clumsily) extended to fill the page. The claim that the retouching is meant to conceal something "they don't want us to see" is a claim made from an absence of evidence. It's equally reasonable that the images were retouched strictly for aesthetic purposes for use in a "coffee table book;" an art book is not a science book, and the photos in it are hardly evidence.

In 1992, the studio I worked at was hired to produce a commemorative poster for Muhammad Ali's 50th birthday. A few guests had departed before the photo was taken, so we were given the task of inserting Billy Cyrstal and Whitney Houston into the group shot. If you look closely, you'll notice that Whitney has no legs. A conspiracy nut might take this as "proof" that Whitney wasn't really there. The truth is she and Diana Ross hated each other's guts and they refused to appear in a photo together.

There is some pretty good evidence of wire supports to simulate lunar gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
(1:02 time mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
Nope.
The first one is worthless, because (a) it's a recording of a TV monitor showing the film and (b) the wires are only visible in the still frame where the arrows and text have been added. The obvious conclusion is that the wires were touched in by the same person who added the labels indicating them. As shown in the second film, there should be two wires coming off each astronaut. That's how flying rigs are done; with only one wire, the performer would spin uncontrollably. The fact that this photo purports to show only one wire on each astronaut is evidence that the claim is false.

The second video does not show a "ping" of light reflecting off a wire at 1:12. If the wires were there, they would be painted black and non-reflective (special-effects people have been doing this for a long time). What you see in this photo is a "lens flare" (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm ). The angle of the sun reflecting off the shiny part of the astronaut's gear is causing a lens flare that trails off vertically. No wire.

The alleged "ping" at 1:34 is obviously a bit of damage to the film.

You people say that someone would have come forward by now. If someone were to make a deathbed statement or try to make a public statement, the press wouldn't report it.
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif
This is kind of a reach. All the links you provides refer to the government or corporate America suppressing or spinning news stories, yet they also show those same stories getting out anyway, like the Bovine Growth Hormone one. Not one of these sites implies or suggests anything indicating that the moon landings were faked, or that a hoax of such scale could be successfully perpetrated for 40 years. In fact, the evidence here suggests otherwise. If the moon landings were a hoax, that should be common knowledge in the rest of the world.

Also, you aren't seriously presenting a comic strip as evidence?

Also, it would be downright dangerous for someone to come forward. Look what happened to Thomas Baron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
If the government were running the conspiracy you describe, wouldn't they have killed him before he testified? They must have known what was in his report before it went to Congress.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

03-08-2009, 11:58 PM

Also, you aren't seriously presenting a comic strip as evidence?

It's as solid as everything else he's putting forth...

Chris N

03-08-2009, 11:59 PM

When my friend first told me that a man was walking down this street with a rat sitting on a cat sitting on a dog, I was skeptical.

Then I saw the man myself. Pretty cool.

Tommy

03-09-2009, 12:27 AM

If the government were running the conspiracy you describe, wouldn't they have killed him before he testified? They must have known what was in his report before it went to Congress.

Not to mention getting a train to hit a car is an all around convoluted, error prone, difficult plan with far too many variables. One that is sure to prompt an investigation.

Even back in the 1960's there were drugs that could be injected into a freckle to fake a heart attack. Why bother with an insanely complicated plot like getting a train to hit a car when there are easier ways to murder someone, and ones that won't prompt investigation?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

03-09-2009, 12:30 AM

Even back in the 1960's there were drugs that could be injected into a freckle to fake a heart attack. Why bother with an insanely complicated plot like getting a train to hit a car when there are easier ways to murder someone, and ones that won't prompt investigation?

Or the Jack Ruby method.

Paradox

03-09-2009, 12:31 AM

Because correlation = causation!

Wait, it doesn't? OK, then. :biggrin:

Spike-X

03-09-2009, 12:41 AM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Paradox

03-09-2009, 12:53 AM

Just because I saw that the other day means nothing! :tongue:

Spike-X

03-09-2009, 01:13 AM

Just because I saw that the other day means nothing! :tongue:
Or...does it?

Spike-X

03-09-2009, 01:19 AM

Double posts are part of the conspiracy.

MacQuarrie

03-09-2009, 02:23 AM

The Earth has developed a slight eccentricity in its rotation. This is caused by the gyroscopic effect of Occam spinning in his grave in response to this thread.

thehod

03-09-2009, 02:41 AM

The Earth has developed a slight eccentricity in its rotation. This is caused by the gyroscopic effect of Occam spinning in his grave in response to this thread.

I hope they didn't bury his razor with him. He'd get a nasty cut with all that spinning.

Chris N

03-09-2009, 03:04 AM

I hope they didn't bury his razor with him. He'd get a nasty cut with all that spinning.

You think you're so sharp, don't you?

Roquefort Raider

03-09-2009, 06:37 AM

In 1992, the studio I worked at was hired to produce a commemorative poster for Muhammad Ali's 50th birthday. A few guests had departed before the photo was taken, so we were given the task of inserting Billy Cyrstal and Whitney Houston into the group shot. If you look closely, you'll notice that Whitney has no legs. A conspiracy nut might take this as "proof" that Whitney wasn't really there. The truth is she and Diana Ross hated each other's guts and they refused to appear in a photo together.

I think it's proof that Diana Ross and Whitney Houston do not exist.

Crowforge

03-09-2009, 07:04 AM

Not to mention getting a train to hit a car is an all around convoluted, error prone, difficult plan with far too many variables. One that is sure to prompt an investigation.

Even back in the 1960's there were drugs that could be injected into a freckle to fake a heart attack. Why bother with an insanely complicated plot like getting a train to hit a car when there are easier ways to murder someone, and ones that won't prompt investigation?
Oh yeah? What about Castro?

Asmith

03-09-2009, 07:13 AM

Oh yeah? What about Castro?

Most of those 'plots' to kill Castro never made it off the drawing board for the very reason that they were over complicated... and it's salient to note that it's old age that is taking him rather than a box of exploding cigars.

jessecuster3

03-09-2009, 07:14 AM

Ok I am going to try this again.

Please stop posting in this thread let it fall off the front page, PLEASE.

Spike-X

03-09-2009, 07:24 AM

Hmm...

nah.

Crowforge

03-09-2009, 07:42 AM

Most of those 'plots' to kill Castro never made it off the drawing board for the very reason that they were over complicated... and it's salient to note that it's old age that is taking him rather than a box of exploding cigars.
I bet they sure were fun to come up with though.

Asmith

03-09-2009, 07:44 AM

Ok I am going to try this again.

Please stop posting in this thread let it fall off the front page, PLEASE.

Why? Really, why?

This thread is a fun little trip down side-show alley. You fear the tin foil hat lobby will create new recruits? I think they'll have to send out a better representative than we've got here before that can happen!

And in the meantime it's a light and jokey thread... fun!

Asmith

03-09-2009, 07:50 AM

I bet they sure were fun to come up with though.

My favourite one was the one where the US government was going to sponsor and encourage Cuban militants to hijack a passenger jet and destroy it with all hands onboard, as a pretext to launch war upon Cuba.

Remind you of anything... anything at all... ooooooooooh! Conspiracy!!

Michael P

03-09-2009, 07:51 AM

My favourite one was the one where the US government was going to sponsor and encourage Cuban militants to hijack a passenger jet and destroy it with all hands onboard, as a pretext to launch war upon Cuba.

Remind you of anything... anything at all... ooooooooooh! Conspiracy!!

I still like the "exploding seashell" one.

Asmith

03-09-2009, 08:09 AM

I still like the "exploding seashell" one.
I don't know that one! Spill?

I'm hoping it was packing a conch shell with TNT and hoping Castro would come along the beach, see it, and put it to his ear to hear the ocean...

Michael P

03-09-2009, 08:12 AM

I don't know that one! Spill?

I'm hoping it was packing a conch shell with TNT and hoping Castro would come along the beach, see it, and put it to his ear to hear the ocean...

That's pretty much it, yeah. Castro was an avid skin diver, and the idea was to find a shell that looked so neat, he'd just have to pick it up, and have a motion sensor inside that would detonate the explosives when he did. The plan was nixed on the drawing board, much to the chagrin of the plan's originator, Special Agent Wile E. Coyote.

Asmith

03-09-2009, 08:16 AM

That's pretty much it, yeah.
Really? Really??! Wow. That's so messed up and stupid. I mean that's Moon landings were faked, stupid!

Spike-X

03-09-2009, 08:17 AM

That's pretty much it, yeah.
And this is the same government that supposedly pulled off nine hoax moon landings?

Crowforge

03-09-2009, 08:44 AM

Asmith

03-09-2009, 08:54 AM

Yeah 911, but Iraq pretty much proved all a president needs to go to war is a stern "Because I said so".

I really think you lack what it takes to be a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nut job...

Loren

03-09-2009, 09:14 AM

I think it's proof that Diana Ross and Whitney Houston do not exist.

No, it's proof that they're actually the same person. I mean, MacQ just gave us an insider's confession that we never see the two of them together.

thehod

03-09-2009, 01:26 PM

You think you're so sharp, don't you?

A cut above? Yeah.

Charles RB

03-09-2009, 04:47 PM

it's salient to note that it's old age that is taking him rather than a box of exploding cigars.

Just like it's taking all the people involved in early NASA!

COINCIDENCE?!

Mermaid

03-09-2009, 04:51 PM

Double posts are part of the conspiracy.

ohhhh so the invisi posts and the triple diple posts were all part of a conspiracy!
How cunning. ..

Spike-X

03-09-2009, 05:27 PM

Yes, quite a cunning stunt indeed!

Ontir

03-09-2009, 07:00 PM

You people haven't said anything that makes the evidence of a hoax go away.

You people have condescending attitudes but you're not saying anything substantial.

There is no evidence, just a lot of twaddle. You people are morons.

Guapo Méndez

03-09-2009, 07:17 PM

There is no evidence, just a lot of twaddle. You people are morons.

I saw a program today with a guy debunking pretty much every "it's a hoax" comment and I have to say it was pretty believable.

For instance, they say the flag waved because of the air conditioning blasting in the warehouse so the astronauts could be kept cool. If you move a flag around, it will wave, air or no air. The telltale that there is no air moving the flag in that shot is the fact that astronauts walk next to the flag and it doesn't wave. There is no air to be pushed by the moving of the astronauts. It only moves when the flagpost is being moved.

Number two: an old man who wrote "Nasa Mooned US" or something like that, says that he made his own vacuum chamber and put a glove there, saying that in a vacuum, you couldn't move your hand freely and operate the camera. Well, not only the camera was modified so it could be operated by the big gloves, not only did the astronauts practiced taking pictures for hours, not only they took the "moon camera" to every social function they had, so they could get the feeling, not only they took hundreds of pictures...they were trained men, at their best physical condition. I'm sorry, but a 60+man who has clearly seen too many smorgasboards cannot compete physically to astronauts in their 30's.

In the end, the narrator said "it's cheaper to send manned missions to the moon than to fake the whole thing."

I agree.

Guapo Méndez

03-09-2009, 07:37 PM

If the government were running the conspiracy you describe, wouldn't they have killed him before he testified? They must have known what was in his report before it went to Congress.

And Thomas Baron died two years before the moon landing. He may have had something to say about Gus Grissom's death, but nothing regarding the Apollo 11 and subsequent missions.

Cosmored

03-10-2009, 06:45 AM

In the end, the narrator said "it's cheaper to send manned missions to the moon than to fake the whole thing."
You're ignoring the radiation issue. It's talked about in post #1 of this thread.

Why would they use shiny wire with bright light? With the blackness of space the obvious choice would be matte black fishing line. Why if they doctored the film would they leave that in? There's no reason.
The evidence shows that that's what they did. Maybe they aibrushed out the wire glints after the footage was taken and missed a few.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

There is some pretty good evidence of wire supports to simulate lunar gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
(1:02 time mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
Reflection from the astronauts' antennae.
The glint is too high to be from the antenna.

I don't find it all that sinister that the first photo they discuss has duplication in the foreground details. The information in those images is laid down in strips and somebody duplicated a couple. That is called a mistake, not a conspiracy.
That is plausible so this duplication isn't proof of the hoax in itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdzNSXDaRI
(1:35 time mark)

It's still pretty suspicious though.

The second video does not show a "ping" of light reflecting off a wire at 1:12. If the wires were there, they would be painted black and non-reflective (special-effects people have been doing this for a long time). What you see in this photo is a "lens flare". The angle of the sun reflecting off the shiny part of the astronaut's gear is causing a lens flare that trails off vertically. No wire.
I have no background in photography but from what I've read about lens flare, light from the source has to enter the camera lens.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm

I this footage the light source is too far to the left for light to go directly into the lens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

It looks to me like light is reflecting off of the wire and antenna then is going into the lens (1:23 time mark).

If these and the above are light artifacts, it sure is a big coincidence that they occur right where a wire would be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
(1:02 time mark)

Also, look at the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor in the first video. The reflecion is pretty big.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=EaV7QB_ReTw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1

You say you're an expert. This guy is an expert too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

Tell us what you think of what he says.

Asmith

03-10-2009, 06:50 AM

You're ignoring the radiation issue. It's talked about in post #1 of this thread.

The evidence shows that that's what they did. Maybe they aibrushed out the wire glints after the footage was taken and missed a few.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

The glint is too high to be from the antenna.

That is plausible so this duplication isn't proof of the hoax in itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdzNSXDaRI
(1:35 time mark)

It's still pretty suspicious though.

I have no background in photography but from what I've read about lens flare, light from the source has to enter the camera lens.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm

I this footage the light source is too far to the left for light to go directly into the lens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

It looks to me like light is reflecting off of the wire and antenna then is going into the lens (1:23 time mark).

If these and the above are light artifacts, it sure is a big coincidence that they occur right where a wire would be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
(1:02 time mark)

Also, look at the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor in the first video. The reflecion is pretty big.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=EaV7QB_ReTw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1

You say you're an expert. This guy is an expert too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

Tell us what you think of what he says.

Seek. Help.

No. Really.