[Closed] Moon Landing Hoax? Channel 5 now!

[i]They could have sent the mirror up in an unmanned rocket though? [/i]

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

There is no moon

So anyway, we've disproved the radiation and the camera cross hairs theories*, what else is there?

*As fully as we can on an Internet forum, i.e. to the same degree that said theories were presented in the first pace.

Moon landing conspiracy theorists are ametuers, I dont even believe the Moon exists 😉

Kryton, come on send us the rest. Perhaps we can persuade you that you've been duped by the sensationalists..

There is no moon

There is. [url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100189553/a-solar-eclipse-is-awesome-mysterious-and-terrifying-do-you-really-think-its-a-cosmic-coincidence-prof-dawkins/ ]When God made it, he made sure to exactly match the apparent size of the Sun from Earth, so that we'd get pretty eclipses.[/url] Proof of both the Moon [i]and[/i] of God!

I really haven't asked any existential questions, and won't

but I think I'm a bit out of my depth here..
To quote an old tutor at college

don't be so open minded that your brain falls out

😳

don't be so open minded that your brain falls out

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

This is funny 🙂

Everyone else realised this a while ago.

How come it took you so long ?

When exactly did they come up with the plan to fake it?
From the outset of the program or maybe right after the Apollo 10 'dry run'?

[img] [/img]

" Cracking place Grommit"

Apollo 10 just flew round the moon taking pictures for the fake landing, I thought that much was obvious..?

Do we need a "what would TJ say" knocking up?

Apollo 10 just flew round the moon taking pictures for the fake landing, I thought that much was obvious..?

Of course! - slaps forehead

It must have been a bit of a bummer to have drawn Apollo 1 in the great moon hoax.
Out of pure respect for those guys, the flat Earthers should stop being silly.

It must have been a bit of a bummer to have drawn Apollo 1 in the great moon hoax.

"Hey Gus, we've picked you to take part in an elaborate hoax!"

"That's great, what do I have to do?"

"Well... actually, you might not like this much but..."

Amazing how many of the leading " we never went" theorists have books/DVDs etc etc to promote. I mean it can't be a co-incidence, right?

Or is it.....

Is it possible that the whole conspiracy theory thing was a conspiracy by NASA to try and rustle up a bit of public interest in the dying space programme..?

Is it possible that the whole conspiracy thing was a conspiracy by NASA to try and rustle up a bit of public interest in the dying space programme..?

Damn you Yunki! 😉

a conspiracy about a conspriracy theory? Yep, I could see how that would work 😆

To be positioned properly for the subsequent experiment, how?
How would our astronaughts be able to measure the same positioning...?

What DOES interest me though is other folks seemingly unshakable and often almost quite aggressive faith in stuff..

Not sure what you mean by Faith here tbh

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..'?

I read around and was able to refute them

Occam's razor is generally useful for this sort if stuff.

As they built a great big rocket there was little to be saved from faking it and if the plan was that elaborate and at that cost we could safely assume they would not mess up the photos as this would be the "proof"- they may have thought of that
Mythbusters did some interesting stuff on the fluttering flag for example to show it would flutter in a vacuum [ when trying to be place dint he ground]as there is no resistance to it moving

I have two issues with conspiracist
1. Whilst it is true the govt could lie to us that does not mean that every time they speak they are doing
2. They tend to believe in a wide catalogue of conspiracy stuff rather than just one

The evidence for an actual moon landing is pretty overwhelming and takes a large does of stupidity or conspiracy magic to not see this.

[paranoid mode]

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

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

[/paranoid mode]

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

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

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

I haven't looked into it properly

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

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

nealglover - Member

I haven't looked into it properly

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

That ^^ and the counter evidence.

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

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

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

[/RANT}

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

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

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

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

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

.... oh, hang on

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

Can we stop the individual persecution now please?

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

Can we stop the individual persecution now please?

Awwwww, but i wanna get some persecution in.

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

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

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

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

[img] [/img]

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

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

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

[img] [/img]

❓

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OI!

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

Not yet molgrips, linky?

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

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

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

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

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

Not yet molgrips, linky?

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

I said counter balance, I meant counter marche

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

Kryton57 - Member
Kryton - what would you like to see as proof?
Something that unequivocally proves that real live NASA astronoughts flew to the moon, landed, wandered around, and came back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

crying fowl... sorry 😳

[img] [/img]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proof aside,

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't possibly agree more.

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

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

Its not it is harder to orbit it, way harder

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try it for yourself:

https://kerbalspaceprogram.com

😀

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

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

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

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

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

In 1969? Really?

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

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

Not likely.

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

I am disappoint.

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

In 1969? Really?

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

🙂

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

This seems relevant and interesting:

Ok, so in some spare time over the weekend I did some research.

And ya know, maybe it depends on opinion becuase there are lost of questions that can't be answered, and lots of questions that HAVE been answered. IE - it looks like some photo's ARE fakes because the qaulity of some weren't plausible to air to the public, so NASA touched some up for presentation. Thier source though was likely real.

IMO, there's enough doubt TODAY based on current technology to merit a requirement of hard proof, but you have to use Today's technology to prove it. Now that could either mean that there's no way in the 60's they could have faked it, OR it could mean that there is a technology way ahead of the times being used - becuase they didnt have access to the tech that theorists are using today.

It really comes down to whether you are cynical about it or not and what you as an individual prefer to believe. Someone put the "mindset" link up (the first chap that called me an idiot) and thats a good one, I get that and how people create something from nothing. Did the Terrorists fly planes into the WTC? Yes unfortunately. Where they sponsered by the CIA who cause thousands of lives to be lost to justify a war in Iraq? No. One leak in such a plot and the civil uprising in the USA would be terminal.

FWIW, I'd rather perhaps naively in a matrix-style live my life as "ignorance is bliss"

So did we go to the moon?

Yep. 😉

Do atheists 'believe' we went to the moon?

there are lost of questions that can't be answered,

Such as?

Do atheists 'believe' we went to the moon?

Atheists all believe the same thing of course. I can only speak for one of them, though I'd hazard that their answers are probably going to be fairly consistent. Yes.

Atheists all believe the same thing of course.

Well, I understood that in terms of their shared requirement for evidence and disavowal of systems built on belief, that it might not be unrealistic for them all to believe and not believe in the same kinds of things. I was just unsure where the moon landings came in this reasoning

Such as?

The lack of a plausable binding agent to hold Armstongs footprints together*

*I didn't have time to look very hard for that one to be fair, but Scientist do quote that without oxygen and water they should have crumbled immediately.

Do atheists 'believe' we went to the moon?

I don't think that most atheists/rationalists/humanists/whatever have a problem "believing" in something that there is strong evidence for.

The lack of a plausable binding agent to hold Armstongs footprints together*

*I didn't have time to look very hard for that one to be fair, but Scientist do quote that without oxygen and water they should have crumbled immediately.

Pour flour onto the floor. Stand in it. Hey, footprint!

I doubt very much that "scientists" quote anything of the sort, seeing as it's bobbins.

Next?

I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
I'll start, no.

The lack of a plausable binding agent to hold Armstongs footprints together*

There's no atmosphere and hence no wind/rain/erosion on the moon. the only way the footprints could disappear would be if hit by a meteorite.

Put a load of sand/gravel/moon rock type stuff into a container, suck out all the air and imprint a pattern into the substrate. So long as conditions stay sealed/under vacuum, it'll stay there.

Someone put the "mindset" link up (the first chap that called me an idiot)

HI! 😀

The lack of a plausable binding agent to hold Armstongs footprints together*

The lack of plausible agent o cause erosion is what you want to look for

Is it your view I cannot make an imprint in a powder..thats not hard to test

I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?

I do.

Mathematically speaking, given our current understanding of the universe, it seems very likely.

Sadly chances are that it is so far away that we will never have any contact with it unless we/they find a way to break the light barrier.

Kryton57 went away, did some research, and came back on here with a revised opinion. Sounds like a decent and intelligent bloke to me 🙂

I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
I'll start, no.

Believe that there are UFOs and little green men flying over Nevada? No.

Believe that somewhere out there there's life other than on this here rock? Yes.

Simply playing the odds here. Space is vast. The Milky Way is a few hundred billion stars, and that's just our own back yard. As a rough estimate, there's a few hundred billion other galaxies too, all containing stars. That's *handwave* 10^23 stars; ie, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 separate solar systems, potentially like the one we've got. And that's probably a conservative estimate, based on figures I've just pulled out of my chuff.

The exact set of circumstances for life to be created is in itself highly unlikely (which the goddish love to remind us), but when you're playing with such big numbers, the unlikely becomes really rather likely indeed. The odds of winning the lottery are astronomically low, yet people do, week in week out.

Do atheists 'believe' we went to the moon?

I am an atheist. I 'believe' we went to the moon. I believe this because of all the evidence.

I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?

As GrahamS has already said, given the size and age of the universe it seems highly likely that there will be (or have been or will be) intelligent extra-terrestrial life out there somewhere, but there's no conclusive evidence so far.

What's more interesting is, if there is intelligent extra-terrestrial life, do Christians believe that did God manifested himself there as Jesus? And do they believe we landed on the moon?