[Closed] Moon Landing Hoax? Channel 5 now!

Woppit I haven't researched the mirror thing, and TBH, can't be assed.

Just about sums it up really. I believe one thing, but have no intention of looking into anything that that might disprove it.

Nice

Mythbusters busted the myths

Brainiac is/was the same. Had to fake explosions to make it look on TV (by another acquaintance).

No comment on the moon landings though.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
~ William Shakespeare, As You Like It. Act V, scene i

piemonster - Member
Some low quality but highly effective trolling going today

I'm quite interested in this and happy to have my opinion changed / cemented either way. When I've got some time I'll do some actual research into it as it does intrigue me.... I wasn't trolling just expressing my (perhaps slihtly uneducated) opinion.

Apologies for not living up to your measure of IQ, but becuase I don't have time to research this all day I'm apparantly an "idiot", nice work STW, this thread'll shortly be closed as we all know Mark objects to that kind of stuff.

How about keeping it open by sticking to some higher plane vocabulary?

Mythbusters, I miss that show. Mainly for Kari Byron.

Hmm, I'll be honest I think it is safe to say that you were/are not being smart. That does not mean that you are not smart, you just happen to be choosing to not be smart today.

The reason I feel safe to say this is that you said

I'd come to the conclusion years ago that it was fake. You only have to take into account the technology being used today by other countries to even attempt to get to the moon to know it wasn't possible.

But you admit above that you need to

do some actual research

So I think it is fair to say that making pronouncements on topics and then arguing about them, only to admit that you have not actually done the research to know wether its true, is in fact, not very smart.

(personally I do not believe in the concept of "intelligence" some people merely choose to be ignorant, and can change that if they want to)

Kryton57, meet kaesae. kaesae, meet Kryton57...

[img] [/img]

So I think it is fair to say that making pronouncements on topics and then arguing about them, only to admit that you have not actually done the research to know wether its true, is in fact, not very smart.

I'll concede that Toy's, fair enough, as my opinion was based on prior knowledge, the program and no recent reseach. Plus I've only had 5 hours sleep since Wednesday morning....

Woppit, I don't quite know what your issue is, but could you back down? Its unecessary and there is a report post button which I'd prefer not to use.

I've asked nicely - Thanks.

It's just typical US Cold War propaganda

Really? What else is a giant hoax on that scale? From my limited knowledge of history it seems like each time they try and cover something relatively minor up it gets found out in no time. Unless some other major technological development is also a hoax and hasn't been found out?

Hiroshima perhaps? The space shuttle? The human genome?

It seems the deniers base their arguments on the premise that "it's impossible". Why exactly? What's so complicated? Just need a pod with life support and a big f-off rocket. Very simple physics.

The physics that allows us to argue on here is VASTLY more advanced, complicated and finely engineered than that behind the moon landings.

Oh and +1 for Kryton57 - let's debate, even strenuously, but let's not be nasty.

(I'm quite interested in this) and happy to have my opinion changed...

I can see no evidence of this, therefore it's cobblers.

TBH boys I think Kryton is being magnanimous and somewhat humble, whilst we are busy just being rude, so lets pack it in yeah?

it seems like each time they try and cover something relatively minor up it gets found out in no time.

Do you want to read that again? 😀

http://counterpoint.uk.com/publications/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theory/

Do you want to read that again?

No, do you want to be a bit more direct?

No, do you want to be a bit more direct?

OK
How would you know about any cover ups that were successful?
There could be 10 times more than the ones that came to light

They could have sent the mirror up in an unmanned rocket though?

To be positioned properly for the subsequent experiment, how?

it seems like each time they try and cover something relatively minor up

Who are "they"?

It's possible that NASA has "faked" or "doctored" a selection of photographs and possibly films. Worth it to them given what was at stake at certain times in the past. If so, you can't blame people for seeing a conspiracy there.
Government agencies worldwide sometimes use a strategy called "lying", all for the "greater good".
All the other evidence suggests that humans [i]have[/i] been to the moon.

There we go, everyone is right.

Now, building 7 . . . . .

Mr Woppit - Member
To be positioned properly for the subsequent experiment, how?

How would our astronaughts be able to measure the same positioning...?

How would you know about any cover ups that were successful?
There could be 10 times more than the ones that came to light

Of course, that's why I posed the subsequent questions. What else do you think might be faked?

The US govt has a history of attempting to cover up seedy practises like funding wars, smoothing the way for big business etc. Is there anything else on this scale that could be a big lie?

It just seems far far less probable than actually going to the moon, given that it's really not that complicated. The big challenges really are in rocket propulsion and project co-ordination, imo.

They could have sent the mirror up in an unmanned rocket though?

Hey, here's an idea. If they're doing that anyway, why not see about chucking a couple of blokes in there with it?

How would our astronaughts be able to measure the same positioning...?

I refuse to answer this question in the way I would like because it might upset you and get me baned.

I haven't researched the mirror thing, and TBH, can't be assed.

I love this.

"The moon landings were obviously faked. I mean, where's the evidence?"

"Er, well, it's here."

"Oh, I can't be bothered to look at that."

Hey, here's an idea. If they're doing that anyway, why not see about chucking a couple of blokes in there with it?

In fairness Cougar it's a hell of a lot easier to send up robot probes, cos they don't need to come back.

[quote=Cougar ]They could have sent the mirror up in an unmanned rocket though?
Hey, here's an idea. If they're doing that anyway, why not see about chucking a couple of blokes in there with it?
Because sending humans is a massive step up in terms of challenge.

I firmly believe we went there - I remember watching those grainy b&w shots - but if the best proof available is the existence of a mirror on the moon then it's no wonder the conspiracy theorists are still in denial.

the best proof available

You don't seriously think that is the best proof available, do you?
There were years of development, millions of dollars spent, 10s of thousands of people involved, multiple missions, thousands of photos, hours of film, samples of rocks, photos of stuff left behind...
I'd trust a tenth of all that over the opinions of a few people who have no understanding whatsoever of fairly basic science or even of photography saying 'I don't understand it so it couldn't have happened'.

f the best proof available is the existence of a mirror on the moon then it's no wonder the conspiracy theorists are still in denial.

this..

I don't wholeheartedly believe anything much, starting with material existence, and ending in UFOs and Simon Cowell so I really haven't got an opinion either way and couldn't care less..

What DOES interest me though is other folks seemingly unshakable and often almost quite aggressive faith in stuff..
So you guys that are certain, have you ever doubted or questioned your belief..?
Some of you talk about research and evidence.. what 'one thing' erased all doubt.. was there a moment where you thought 'yes well that's settled it for me..'?

How much "better" could the proof be for you?

And "robot" probes didn't exist at the time - the computing technology would not support such a device.

This stuff is so obvious, the wonder of it is that it shows just how many people don't seem to be able to think beyond the end of their own noses.

Feh. And for that reason, etc...

[quote=Mr Woppit ]How much "better" could the proof be for you?
And "robot" probes didn't exist at the time
The Russian Luna program disagrees with you.

This stuff is so obvious, the wonder of it is that it shows just how many people don't seem to be able to think beyond the end of their own noses.

Then why not feel free to enlighten us with such obviousness?

EDIT: On the program as least, that was pretty much NASA's argument btw...

And "robot" probes didn't exist at the time

Yeah they did, lots of lunar landers before Apollo 11. They weren't curiosity style rovers, but they were still robot probes.

Kryton - what would you like to see as proof?

This is the thing with conspiracy theories, it's like a religion. Bring in evidence to dispute their view and the main answer is "oh, you must be in on it too" or "you've been duped/brainwashed by them".

You can never argue with conspiracy theorists, it's pointless even trying. Although it is sometimes entertaining.

We should put a marker by their forum names - anyone who doesn't believe in the moon landings/planes taking off on conveyor belts/9-11 should just have a little idiot tag by their name. It'd save arguing with them.
🙂

Kryton - what would you like to see as proof?

Something that unequivocally proves that real live NASA astronoughts flew to the moon, landed, wandered around, and came back.

You can never argue with conspiracy theorists, it's pointless even trying. Although it is sometimes entertaining

You can if you are good enough 🙂

We should put a marker by their forum names - anyone who doesn't believe in the moon landings/planes taking off on conveyor belts/9-11 should just have a little idiot tag by their name. It'd save arguing with them.

see, it's that kind of aggressive stuff that confuses me.. that sort of thing denotes to me a kind of fervour that just doesn't add up

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by the way.. I just don't believe in anything that I can't drink, love or fall off

I don't wholeheartedly believe anything much, starting with material existence

This is a good place to start from.

Many people like to say "Science" proves this, "Science" says that.
Well, lots of "scientists" are saying that the physical world doesn't even exist in the way that humans believe/perceive it to.

Some people haven't even taken the time to consider what they actually are themselves ie what is your own consciousness? [i]That[/i] is where everything you think is happening starts from.

It's possibly a good idea to keep an open mind about EVERYTHING*

* except the wearing of lycra cycling shorts in public

Something that unequivocally proves

Like what? Tell us what you need to hear/see/touch.

Something that unequivocally proves that real live NASA astronoughts flew to the moon, landed, wandered around, and came back.

Such as? There's plenty of proof, you just choose to argue and not believe it.....

There's plenty of proof, you just choose to argue and not believe it.....

The latter part of your statement is true. The former part of your statement is incorrect. To correct, there is plenty of [i]evidence[/i], but there is also plenty of evidence to counter the evidence [i]for[/i] a manned moon landing.

Now interestingly within this thread alone, I'm getting to the point where I might come to the relaisation that it [i]can't[/i] be proven, becuase unless one/me chooses to accept the avidence for a moon landing, other than actually going with them myself and having a walk on the moon how would you convince me? Therefore it all becomes a non argument, just a matter of opinion.

Another quick question - do conspiracy [s]nutters[/s] theorists not believe in [i]any[/i] of the moon landings, or just the first one?

This

I don't wholeheartedly believe anything much, starting with material existence

and this

Many people like to say "Science" proves this, "Science" says that.
Well, lots of "scientists" are saying that the physical world doesn't even exist in the way that humans believe/perceive it to.

are just postmodernist twaddle, that have nothing to do with wether the moon landings are real or hoaxed.

If you want to apply those arguments then there is no convincing evidence that Yunki or Aye-Aye even exist to have posted their musings.

Meanwhile back in the real world..

This has yet to be shown:

but there is also plenty of evidence to counter the evidence for a manned moon landing.

come on present your evidence that it was a hoax?

rogg, to paraphrase Yunki a bit, you place agressive/antagonistic content in your post, but wouldn't you feel silly / would you apologise if you were proven wrong? Its not like the US has never been revealed to cover stuff up is it?

NASA reckoned that Concorde was technically more challenging than the moon landings.

But to be fair that was faked too, because if it wasn't you'd be able to fly to New York on it today.

there is also plenty of evidence to counter the truth

There isn't. If you have a mountain of evidence on one hand, and a tiny amount of easily answered questions (being asked by people with no qualifications) on the other, why would you go against the evidence?

Oh, and

the truth

Ha!

The latter part of your statement is true. The former part of your statement is incorrect. To correct, there is plenty of evidence, but there is also plenty of evidence to counter the evidence for a manned moon landing.

There you go, proving my point straight away. You WILL argue no matter what. Even if we sent
to you to the bloody Moon to see the footprints you'd STILL say it was a hoax! You MUST argue. You MUST be right. Whereas I don't really give a shit! 🙂

toys19 is just frustrated because he doesn't exist

Or there's the Buzz Aldrin approach to moon-landing deniers

Love the comment "That punch is clearly? fake! Look at the shadows, people!" 🙂

ok - Rogg / woppit - answer this one.

The Astronaughts had chest strapped camara with reference markings etched into the glass, verified by the designer. How do those markings appear [i]behind[/i] object being photographed?

Oh and Rogg, $40bn to use for a cover up would go a long way I suspect.

Posted 1 minute ago # Report-Post
aye-aye - Member

toys19 is just frustrated because he doesn't exist

Ummm this statement refutes itself....

Whereas I don't really give a shit!

Why are you posting then?

I think it reflects badly on all of us that this topic has reached 4 pages.

I refer people to Brian Cox's tweet linked to on page 1.

If you want to apply those arguments then there is no convincing evidence that Yunki or Aye-Aye even exist to have posted their musings.

Meanwhile back in the real world..

maaaaaaate.. I clearly wasn't presenting an argument, just stating my position to prevent accusations of tin hattism
Don't try to set things off on a tangent just cos we is slightly more cleverer than you..!! 😆
I'm 'agnostic' so to speak.. sillybilly

So much vitriol..!

I asked my questions up there ^^^ somewhere

can you answer them..?

How do those markings appear behind object being photographed?

Because the light from the object being photographed bleaches out the crosshairs. There are about a billion examples of this on the internet.

if you took a photo and saw this phemonenon would you doubt that you had taken the photo?

Again, I haven't done any research - I should stop now until I have as its a bit pointless otherwise.

agressive/antagonistic

I'm sorry. I just think the whole thing's daft. Yes, there have been conspiracies and cover-ups, but in this case I find it impossible to understand why anyone thinks it was a hoax. Have you read either of the website I linked to earlier? A lot of the so-called 'hoax evidence' contradicts itself. It's all very easily explained. The programme was hopelessly one sided.
What the US achieved was amazing. [i]Almost[/i] incredible. But in the way that 9/11 theories do those that died a dis-service, so this does for the tens of thousands of people involved.

No vitriol, thats your perception yunki. Anyway which questions, I had a look back through the thread and can't find any from you about the moon landings?

Why are you posting then?

So, go on then, you conspiracy theorists, present your evidence. I could do with a giggle.

This thread doesn't exist

[quote=PeterPoddy ]
So, go on then, you conspiracy theorists, present your evidence. I could do with a giggle.
Isn't that like trying to prove the non-existence of (a) god(s)?

How do those markings appear behind object being photographed?

What toys said. The cross hairs disappear where they lie over white objects. There are images of the cross hairs over the US flag which disappear over the white bars but are present over the red bars. If the image was a fake, the whole flag would have been laid over the cross hairs (or the cross hairs over the flag).

[img] [/img]

Anyway which questions, I had a look back through the thread and can't find any from you about the moon landings?

no need to be obtuse, that just insulting both our intellects..

I'll re-post for clarity

I don't wholeheartedly believe anything much, starting with material existence, and ending in UFOs and Simon Cowell so I really haven't got an opinion either way and couldn't care less..

What DOES interest me though is other folks seemingly unshakable and often almost quite aggressive faith in stuff..
So you guys that are certain, have you ever doubted or questioned your belief..?
Some of you talk about research and evidence.. what 'one thing' erased all doubt.. was there a moment where you thought 'yes well that's settled it for me..'?

What the US achieved was amazing. Almost incredible. But in the way that 9/11 theories do those that died a dis-service, so this does for the tens of thousands of people involved.

Agreed. Well said actually.
Have we got any evidence of a hoax yet?
I've read some of the 'evidence' in the past, and the 9/11 stuff and its actually laughable in the main.

The cross hairs disappear where they lie over white objects. There are images of the cross hairs over the US flag which disappear over the white bars but are present over the red bars. If the image was a fake, the whole flag would have been laid over the cross hairs

If you were faking photos, why bother with cross hairs at all? And even more, why bother taking them without the crosshairs, and then suddenly go 'oh crap we need crosshairs in this image' then somehow project them onto the background of the image behind all the stuff? Or erect a giant backdrop with fine crosshairs on it?

Surely if you really needed crosshairs you'd put them on the camera in the exact same way as they 'real' astronaut camera did? It's really simple, and far simpler than arranging it in the background.

Occam's razor.

Just watched the Buzz Aldrin video. To be fair, if someone called me a coward and a liar, I'd be tempted to do the same as well. I'm imagining Mr Aldrin had been in the military before he was an astronaut, so I guess he could handle himself. 😆

Wow ... just wow

ITT people who claim to be open minded about the evidence, but can't tell the difference between evidence and what some bloke said on the internet.

There comes a point when it might be better to assume the deniers are trolling; because that is less depressing than the thought that they are real people using our precious precious oxygen.

I have decided to call this point the "trolling event horizon".
Where trolling and stupidity meet and become so dense that they form a singularity and (hopefully) vanish up their own fundament.

1) So you guys that are certain, have you ever doubted or questioned your belief..?

Questioned yes, as a teenager, I think after seeing capricorn one.

2) Some of you talk about research and evidence.. what 'one thing' erased all doubt.. was there a moment where you thought 'yes well that's settled it for me..'?

I wasn't being obtuse, I think you are by raising existential philisophical questions over what is considered to be the standard of proof for the scientific method. And trying to slide your personal digs in for no real reason. I have not insulted you, and others here are happy to discuss this without being belligernet.

PeterPoddy - Member

Why are you posting then?

Truthfully?
Because it's fun baiting you and I'm bored at work

Except its not really working, is it. You are just being proven hypocritical at every turn, this excuse now being used instead of an educated response.

Just watched the Buzz Aldrin video. To be fair, if someone called me a coward and a liar, I'd be tempted to do the same as well

Is PeterPoddy John Prescotts singletrack user name?

hmm.. I'm not sure I understand your irritation toys.. particularly about the existential questions bit that you seem to be preoccupied with..

erm, as a result I'm not really comfortable continuing this

This chap is trying to demonstrate how the first moon landing was originally achieved. He is using a bicycle and a chubby mans belly to demonstrate the theory.

[img] [/img]

Except its not really working, is it. You are just being proven hypocritical at every turn, this excuse now being used instead of an educated response

I honesty, truthfully have not the foggiest idea of what you mean or intend from that.
I'm sitting here in the weighbridge office of a quarry near Reading. I have 5 days left to work due to being made redundant. The trade is non existent here, I cannot be arsed to do anything for obvious reasons so I'm whiling away my day on the Internet.
Or do you think I'm a hoax? 😕

I haven't done any research

Then you've two options, really.

a) do some research, or

b) believe the people who have.

Five seconds' googling will answer your photo question.

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

In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit particles. Ironically, this saturation effect would not happen if the crosshairs were drawn on in post, and so is evidence of genuine photos. Attempting to alter photos that already have crosshairs would make the compositing process far more difficult.

The amount of evidence for a faked moon landing is "none at all," I'm afraid. The "evidence" routinely trotted out by the swivel-eyed all falls down when examined by anyone with a clue.

[quote=PeterPoddy ]
I'm sitting here in the weighbridge office of a quarry near Reading. I have 5 days left to work due to being made redundant. Any truth in the rumour that the quarry is closing as it is going to be used as a backdrop for the next video from the "Mars Lander"??

Druid, it would be a fairly reasonable place to try it. The gravel round here passes a passing resemblance to Mars!

I've been watching the NASA podcast of the Mars lander actually. Some cracking quality shots being taken. 🙂

hmm.. I'm not sure I understand your irritation toys.. particularly about the existential questions bit that you seem to be preoccupied with..

erm, as a result I'm not really comfortable continuing this

Look I am happy to discuss this and present any arguments/refutation, I don't see what your problem is. I thought you were asking questions about the moonlandings, but I was wrong, sorry. I genuninely think the existential questions do not ahve a place here as they could apply to the discussion of any truth, including the things you can love or drink.

Your questions I answered and I thought they were valid, so I don't see why we cannot carry on in that vein?

[img] [/img]

Is that some kind of evidence for hoaxed moon landings then Aye-Aye?