What's new

The moon landings

Did man walk on the moon?

  • Of course.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't have a brain, therefore, I'm saying "no".

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.
My point is that it wasn't a "disrespectful brush off of an apology" but sincere!

Why should Phil sit on the side of the fence that says they did walk on the moon when he is not 100% convinced of that? Phil has been polite all the way through this debate and took all that has been said and shown him on board! He likes to understand other peoples points of view and opinions on information he has found.

UC saying that "It doesn't mean a damned thing to me " means he doesn't believe him in my eyes, ie calling Phil a LIAR! He is saying Phil is not being truthful when he admits he is wrong! Doesnt that mean he thinks Phil is a liar?

YES I WILL defend him because I KNOW him, you do not!

HE is NOT biased and close minded!
 
No, UC brushed off Phil's apology :)! I know it was sincere from Phil.

The point still stands though. I am open minded. I will admit that given enough irrefutable evidence, I will side with Phil on this. Phil has so far not presented any irrefutable evidence.

Yes, there is a stand point here, but will Phil say that the moon landings could have happened, given that there is no proof to the contrary? So far he hasn't.

Being open minded is not about accepting other people have different opinions. Being open minded means that you are willing to change your opinion based on proof and solid argument. Phil has decided the moon landings did not happen. No proof to the contrary has ever swayed him from this decision.

Every time new evidence is brought forward, I look at it. I look to see if it finally offers evidence the moon landings didn't take place. So far nothing has. What I'm doing is not looking to prove THEM wrong, but to prove ME wrong. My decision about the moon landings is in flux. It's not immovable. Is Phil's?

As I said before:
furie said:
Please though, don't take it too personally. I've had arguments with UC very similar to this. Everyone is different, and when something we deeply believe or hold dear is brought into question - it does feel personal. Things can get heated, but we should all be able to sit down and have a beer together in the end. Your beliefs don't reflect you as a person and it's not slur on you personally (as such) :lol: It's just a heated discussion, which should be lively, thought provoking and get the blood flowing :)

Phil's stance and research may be being brought into question; but not his character or humanity. It's important to make that distinction; even though it's hard.
 
Jools said:
Hixee said:
AS17-134-20384.jpg

I don't know really, but this photo doesn't help, the Sun is hitting the earth at one angle but you can see the sun shining on the astronauts helmet from the other. :? I guess it could be light reflecting off something else though.

Sorry, missed this.

Moon dust is reflective. It's been described like "tin foil". This is why you get a lot of these odd reflections and shadows.
 
Furie I am NOT thick, don't ever talk down to me like that again! I do not appreciate it!

Phil has not seen enough proof in his opinion to say that man has walked on the moon just like you haven't seen enough proof to say to they haven't!

It states at the top of this poll.....

I don't have a brain, therefore, I'm saying "no".

Well that is how Phil has been treated because he has said no!
 
Karen, I'm not talking down to you. I'm simply trying to politely diffuse the situation a little which has got very personal.

Neither UC or myself made this topic. We didn't put in that option and it's not swaying our opinion of Phil. UC is an aggressive poster, we know this. You can either respond aggressively, or calmly and with proof. Phil has been doing that so far (with some exasperation, yes) and good on him.

Now it's suddenly blown up, and UC has got the rise and argument he wanted.

I'm just trying to mediate in the process and carry on with the discussion. I'm sorry if it comes across as talking down to you, but I need to try and clear the situation and make sure every understands all the angles.
 
furie said:
No, UC brushed off Phil's apology :)! I know it was sincere from Phil.

The point still stands though. I am open minded. I will admit that given enough irrefutable evidence, I will side with Phil on this. Phil has so far not presented any irrefutable evidence.

Sorry Furie but the apology thing was aimed at UC.

As for Phil not being open minded, he has admited that "Dark side of the moon" was not good evidence and research! HE CHANGED HIS OPINION!
 
furie said:
Jools said:
Hixee said:

I don't know really, but this photo doesn't help, the Sun is hitting the earth at one angle but you can see the sun shining on the astronauts helmet from the other. :? I guess it could be light reflecting off something else though.

Sorry, missed this.

Moon dust is reflective. It's been described like "tin foil". This is why you get a lot of these odd reflections and shadows.
Also, note the amount of light being cast on the Earth. It's almost as if the sun was being obscured by something. Considering that the sun is very low on the horizon (in the reflection in the visor) then I'm willing to bet that it's a similar situation to when you can see the moon and the sun in the sky at the same time. The angles are so extreme here that in fact, the picture makes perfect sense. ;)
 
Karen said:
It states at the top of this poll.....

I don't have a brain, therefore, I'm saying "no".

Well that is how Phil has been treated because he has said no!

Just to add, I didn't expect this topic to go quite like this, and in hindsight I guess I do regret that second poll option, it's very childish, but I'm a very childish person sometimes. It's just my sense of humour, which is why I also added this

Martyn said:
In this completely unbiased poll (!)

in the body text.

My original intention with the poll was to find out if there were any people who didn't believe it, and find out why they didn't believe it. I wanted to know what I was missing that made 25% of our population believe it didn't happen.

It seems I'm not missing anything.
 
UC....................

You don't know me (or Phil) so stop making me out to have no brain and no idea what I am talking about. I backed up Phil as he wasn't here to defend himself as he was at work!

No you didn't call him a liar but you said you didn't believe him so you thought he was not telling the truth. Doesn't that mean you think its a lie?

Why would I cry over you? You are a brash unlikable person who has been calling Phil names before he even mentioned it!

As I have said before I am a fence sitter on this topic which is why I am in here to look at both sides of the debate (arguement).

Of what I am reading You are the one that is close-minded! You are the one that is "stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. "

Phil has been looking into this topic way before it was posted on CF.

I am here sticking up for Phil as he is my partner and you are making him out to be someone he is not!

Well here's some honesty for you............
I have never watched the moon landing footage that was broadcast in 1969 so I thought it was time I did..............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 635845.stm

Grainy and not alot of detail but hey the technology was nothing like we have today.
 
OK so I'm new at this subject and yes I did a google search and found this....
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE[/youtube]

I'm not saying I believe it but it makes you wonder and laugh as they look like Thunderbirds puppets! :lol:
 
The reason I was unaware of the directors comments on his film "Dark Side Of The Moon" was because I was given this film as a dvd about two years ago by a friend so I had not seen the directors comments until they were pointed out here. I do not know the directors reasons for doing this film or how much is fabricated and how much is true but it blurs the facts which is why I admitted it is not a good film to prove the moon hoax. This film appears to me to be the only bit of de bunking you have done against what I have posted on here.
The late Jack White's reputation was slurred but you didnt dismiss the actual photos. Look at them. There are loads of questions to be asked about these photos. de bunk them. All of them. That is evidence.
I also posted a film " A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" which no one has commented on and yet it contains lots of information and Nasa footage which adds weight to my view.
I posted an interview with Bart Sibrel the person who made the " A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" film. I dont actually like Bart Sibrels style or the man but his views on what happened with the moon hoax are similar to mine. Snoo Snoo listen to this and you will know my opinion.
Martyns mirrors on the moon is interesting but as loefet pointed out they could have been put there by a non manned mission.
Furies comment - First up, there are several people who walked on the surface of the moon. Ask them, they'll tell you they did it. It would stand up in a court of law.
Well Furie here is a film for you to watch. Only three of the astronaughts interviewed would swear on a bible that they had been on the moon and one of them that did, stated that he didnt believe anyway! So I dont think they are going to stand up in court.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZYpfKf3tCc[/youtube]


More google/youtube searched infomation for you UC . De bunk this.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ[/youtube]

Are you starting to see why I dont believe in the moon landings yet?

This sums up some more reasons why I am skeptical.


Almost 40 years ago, with *combined CSM and LM guidance computer memory totaling only 10.3% [152kb] of a common 1.4MB [1474.56kb] floppy disk, NASA claims to have traveled 60,000% as far as any other manned spacecraft has gone before or since. Basically a household calculator (or discount watch) took 27 men [Apollo 8 to 17] to the moon and back, with the help of slide rules - accounting for fuel consumption, angle of approach, lunar landing, rate of descent, and so on. Yet at a distance of under 300 miles from Earth, we have lost the lives of 14 Shuttle astronauts who never left Earth orbit. In 9 trips there were no incidents involving small meteors, even though the hull of the craft dubbed the LM had a hull so thin in places that a screwdriver wall fall through the floor if dropped. Yes, Space is a big place - but there were no injuries or damage except Apollo 13's apparent self-inflicted wound? Van Allen made it clear in his 1958-59 report that travelers to the moon would need go around the belts, approaching the moon by first departing through the space directly above the the north or south poles of the Earth. These limitations alone, make the trip to the moon a theory, and not a fact.

Furie wrote - You're calling several presidents, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and a lot of other people complete and utter liars of the highest order.

Yes I am. Do you trust your goverment and politicians? The astronaughts are working for Nasa and Nasa is a goverment agency just like the CIA etc. Do you think they never lie to you and everything that they are doing is upfront and you are informed of it?

Furie wrote - That's a pretty harsh judgement on those people. If the basis of your argument is that these people are liars and cheats, then you have to get your own side questioned in a similar way.

Why do I? These people are elected into office or working for the goverment paid for by the tax payer. What has that got to do with me?

I do not understand why my character or my girlfriends has anything to do with this post? I am showing you why I think that the moon landings are fake. I haven't commented on here to be judged or face the spanish inquisition. I do this with google/youtube links because it is a faster way to put across what I believe. I do not appreciate any slurs on Karen or myself and do not expect to get them on here. I too could call UC many names but i am refraining from it at present and being called a "tool" I think is over stepping the mark. Just because UC always posts like this does not make it right. Anyone can be the big man typing at home. Lets keep this post about the moon landings and try to keep things civil and not personal. Phil (Furie) I thought you would put UC straight about abuse and name calling not back him up??
 
Where to start? :lol:

LOL First up, I apologise for missing UC's "tosser" comment. I was doing a lot while trying to moderate the topic yesterday and missed it. Personally, I think if somebody has to resort to name calling, then I lose respect for the person making the argument. It belittles the facts kind of thing. That works on both sides...

Anyway, no more name calling, let's just keep this to "the facts" now please?

Secondly, I've said it time and again, this isn't personal. It's a forum board and it's people's opinions. Somebody who finds your ideas credulous is going to try and work out why you think like that. That doesn't mean that they think that about you completely. I know both you and Karen and what's written in here doesn't change my opinion of the fact you're both lovely people. It doesn't make me think any less of you, or any more of you - it's just simply a heated discussion over a wildly differing of opinions. Please don't take it personally. I don't think you are though Phil? Your posts have been very straight, sincere and have avoided becoming irate. That's the best approach to take.

As for support? I'm trying to moderate. That's my job here and I'm trying to keep things on an even keel. I obviously have a side in the debate, but not in the "personal" arguments. On that, I'm trying to keep central and mediate. I've apologised above for missing direct personal insults, and wont again.

I think, like Martyn, this is a really interesting topic. Like Martyn, I want to know why people believe this. To me, it's like somebody trying to convince me 2+2 = 7. I know there are theories as to why, but it really is pulling apart what I consider to be a fundamental truth. That doesn't mean I can't be swayed, but it is that kind of thing.

So I'd like to see a kind of proof, answer, proof answer kind of discussion to try and nail this - no more attacking personal beliefs?

Philthy said:
The late Jack White's reputation was slurred but you didnt dismiss the actual photos. Look at them. There are loads of questions to be asked about these photos. de bunk them. All of them. That is evidence.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm

There are literally dozens of pages on the internet explaining all of Jack White's theories away. Mythbusters also did an entire show proving them wrong.

These pages are written by experts in science and photography. Dozens of them, a lot with experiments you can do at home which prove that it happened just as it did in the real photos.

Philthy said:
I also posted a film " A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" which no one has commented on and yet it contains lots of information and Nasa footage which adds weight to my view.

I think for most people (especially me), we don't have time or inclination to watch things. If there's a site which summarises the films, I'll take my time and read it. I just don't tend to watch documentaries like this, I prefer cold hard facts written down which I can then re-read and question as I go along.

I've certainly watched several hours of "Moon Hoax" documentaries though over the years. I just can't remember many in detail, but I know that none of them really convinced me.

A set of "proofs" from the documentaries presented is much better than asking people to sit through hours of footage.

Philthy said:
Martyns mirrors on the moon is interesting but as loefet pointed out they could have been put there by a non manned mission.

Bart Sibrel doesn't even believe the Space Shuttles go to space, so the question is, has anything ever been to the moon. Where do you pick up on some theories and reject others? If you think a guy is right on 20 points, but wrong on 20 - shouldn't it leave doubt about all his theories?

Philthy said:
Furies comment - First up, there are several people who walked on the surface of the moon. Ask them, they'll tell you they did it. It would stand up in a court of law.
Well Furie here is a film for you to watch. Only three of the astronaughts interviewed would swear on a bible that they had been on the moon and one of them that did, stated that he didnt believe anyway! So I dont think they are going to stand up in court.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZYpfKf3tCc[/youtube]

That was honestly, painful to watch.

Bart Sibrel set up "fake kids TV interviews" with the astronauts. He pretended that they were going to be filming a show for kids where they interviewed people who had walked on the moon. Bart lured the astronauts onto camera with him, then barraged the astronauts with questions about if the moon landings were real or not. He then confronts them, asking them to swear they did it. Of course, you only see the "aggressive cut". You don't see the rest of it.

They are all, without fail, utterly offended by this. They have been duped by this guy so he can come along and accuse them of not doing something. These guys risked their lives for the "American Dream", and they are offended by anybody questioning that. They were all goaded.

My Grandad used to run the Normandy Veterans Association in the UK. If anyone had gone up to them and said "I don't believe you were on a Normandy Beach, no British soldier landed there, swear to me you were there" they'd get a punch from any of those members. And rightly so. If you do something heroic and amazing, then it's just plain rude to be questioned like that and to try and force you into something. They reacted correctly, they reacted like they we being treated shamefully - which they were.


Philthy said:
Almost 40 years ago, with *combined CSM and LM guidance computer memory totaling only 10.3% [152kb] of a common 1.4MB [1474.56kb] floppy disk, NASA claims to have traveled 60,000% as far as any other manned spacecraft has gone before or since. Basically a household calculator (or discount watch) took 27 men [Apollo 8 to 17] to the moon and back,

I'll split this :)

First up, the onboard computer was indeed that small. However, all the computer control was done using mainframes back at Houston. These computers were much more powerful. So yes, the command module computer was rubbish, but it was a simple device designed to do simple task. The calculations were carried out back at base.

I also used to have a Spectrum 48k computer that could do these calculations with 5% of the memory of a floppy disk... ;)

It's also worth noting that NASA recently okayed an upgrade to their shuttle flight systems. Which modern day computer processor did they choose? AMD Athlon? Pentium Dual Core?

Actually, a 1990 first release Pentium chip. They don't need anything else.

Philthy said:
with the help of slide rules - accounting for fuel consumption, angle of approach, lunar landing, rate of descent, and so on.

I have a quote for you here:

Bruno Stanek said:
In 1969/70, when I was an instructor at the Swiss Institute of Technology (pre-pre-PC era...), I solved the boundary value three body problem for my own personal enjoyment on our CDC 1604: fitting time of departure and arrival, orbital height and inclination of the respective lunar/earth parking orbits and approximate nodes (actually these were precisely determined mathematically because I did not get them from the usual NASA publications). Having x,y,z in five minute intervals, I transformed those to equatorial as well as topocentric astronomical coordinates and supplied the data to well equipped amateur astronomers. I remember mentioning my "project" during one of my live Apollo broadcasts on Swiss National TV and two promising responses reached me. One was a Mr. Seiler in neighboring Bavaria/Germany near Munich who took astro photographs through a 0.5-meter-telescope. He was successful: his long exposure not only showed the LM-CSM-combination at the right location - even the velocity vector proved itself by the right direction of the trace of the moving spacecraft on his film!

He was one of thousands of independentpeople around the world who hand calculated the mission data - for fun.

It may be rocket science, but that's why the world has rocket scientists :p

Philthy said:
Yet at a distance of under 300 miles from Earth, we have lost the lives of 14 Shuttle astronauts who never left Earth orbit.

Out of over 100 shuttle missions, there have been two failures. That's less than a 2% failure rate.

Out of 17 Apollo missions, there were two failures. The Apollo missions were always known to be risky, which was one big factor in cancelling the project. That's around a 10% failure rate and both Apollo 11 and Apollo 13 were very lucky to return.

Philthy said:
In 9 trips there were no incidents involving small meteors, even though the hull of the craft dubbed the LM had a hull so thin in places that a screwdriver wall fall through the floor if dropped.

It's not like the Lunar Module travelled hundreds of thousands of miles through space like this. It was protected inside the Apollo rocket until it was deployed to drop to the moon. This is the very last stage of the landing process. The moon doesn't collect debris in the same way the earth does. There's no layer of "crap" around it waiting to punch a hole through a craft coming down. It didn't happen, because the lunar module was in clean space, and only for a relatively short journey.

Even today, the chances of a space craft hitting "debris" around Earth is slim.

Philthy said:
Yes, Space is a big place - but there were no injuries or damage except Apollo 13's apparent self-inflicted wound? Van Allen made it clear in his 1958-59 report that travelers to the moon would need go around the belts, approaching the moon by first departing through the space directly above the the north or south poles of the Earth. These limitations alone, make the trip to the moon a theory, and not a fact.

That's odd...
Dr James Van Allen said:
The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense

And they did go through the Van Allen belt... They measured the radiation in the Van Allen belt and chose the weakest points.

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.

There are lots of pages with lots of very hardcore details about the radiation levels, etc. But I can't make head nor tail of it. :lol:

Philthy said:
Furie wrote - You're calling several presidents, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and a lot of other people complete and utter liars of the highest order.

Yes I am. Do you trust your goverment and politicians?

I'll split this one as well.

It's a difficult question to answer. Essentially, no. I's be naive to think that there aren't things going on in the back ground we don't know about. However, we elect these people. I know a lad who is an MP now. He was sincere and really wanted to actually help with his politics. Yes, he may now be "corrupted", but that wasn't why he entered politics. I think it's unfair to suggest that every single member of the government is a liar and a cheat. Often, you find they don't lie anyway, they just avoid the truth.

Philthy said:
The astronaughts are working for Nasa and Nasa is a goverment agency just like the CIA etc. Do you think they never lie to you and everything that they are doing is upfront and you are informed of it?

No, and I don't expect them to either. However, to consider that absolutely everything they do is a complete fabrication is wrong headed. Does the shuttle make regular trips? Does the international space station exist? Is the Hubble Telescope in space? All true, NASA hasn't covered those up. Yet not one of those things was as highly covered by media, press agencies and the rest of the world as the moon landings.

Stephen Fry said:
The US Government could even cover up where CLinton's dick had been - how on Earth could they cover up the most televised and covered even in history?

Just because we don't know it all doesn't mean everything is immediately a lie.

Philthy said:
Furie wrote - That's a pretty harsh judgement on those people. If the basis of your argument is that these people are liars and cheats, then you have to get your own side questioned in a similar way.

Why do I? These people are elected into office or working for the goverment paid for by the tax payer. What has that got to do with me?

The fact one of them may live around the corner from you? Our local MP lives less than a mile away. WE vote for them. WE vote them out. This is what it has to do with you. These aren't nameless people working for covert secret services nobody knows about. These are high profile figures whose lives are often under a media microscope.

The point is though, you are calling "American heroes" liars. If you're going to do that, then you need to have a massive amount of evidence and be 100% clean yourself. Sibrel, White and Kaysing are a long way from open, honest and decent people.

That's pulling away from facts into conjecture and personal opinion though - so I think it's a route best left unfollowed.

Phew. Hopefully there's some stuff there to chew over anyway. What I'm really interested in though are the big questions. You can chew the cud over photo evidence, hull thickness, etc, but for the hoax to work, you need to be able to answer the big questions raised.

1. Why the hoax at all? NASA had the money, the craft and the technology.

2. Why do the Russians (with spies in US government and NASA) believe it happened? They have the most to gain from refuting it.

3. How over 40 years has the conspiracy been kept quiet, considering it involves hundreds of thousands of people?

If those higher questions can't be answered, then things like "stars or not", "tinpot calculator computers" and "the letter C on a rock" don't mean anything.
 
Philthy said:
I also posted a film " A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" which no one has commented on and yet it contains lots of information and Nasa footage which adds weight to my view.

I started watching it. However, any "scientific" film that starts its argument with quotes from the bible and saying that going against God always ends in disaster (Tower of Babel, Titanic), really isn't going to grab my attention as a credible argument at all.

Saying that, I gave it a bit more of a chance and was rewarded for my efforts with about 5 minutes worth of rocket launches going wrong (all it needed was a bit of "Benny Hill" music to be honest) as some kind of "proof" that a rocket couldn't get to the moon?

I gave up by that point.
 
I remember watching that one when it was first aired in about 2001.

I did watch it all. The whole "rockets could never get there" thing struck me as just being plain wrong. The rest? It certainly seemed plausible in the way it was presented, and with no other facts or counter arguments.

In fact, I would say after watching that program, I was more on the "they never landed" side of the fence. Brushing aside the obvious trash, a lot of the evidence seemed very convincing. Remember, back in 2001 I was still using dial-up and internet access was something quite rare to use for this kind of "research".

It was only a couple of years later I looked into it more. I was looking for more compelling evidence to support my "maybe they didn't go to the moon" opinion. At that point, I found several sites explaining away everything in the program and I realised I'd been duped. A piece of media on it's own, in the right environment, presented correctly can be very compelling.

I did do a lot of research for my last monster post, but it never ends does it? I've found this now which again sways the argument:
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landi ... ndings.htm
 
Thankyou Furie for getting this post back on track to the sort of debate I thought I was entering and bringing up some interesting points. I also think this is a very interesting subject and I am only interested in the truth whichever way that may fall and even if I had to make a turn around on my conclusions so far.
I do try to watch and read all the links from both sides of this debate to try to have an even view. I am still working my way through links which is why there is sometimes days between my posts.

Furie wrote -

I think for most people (especially me), we don't have time or inclination to watch things. If there's a site which summarises the films, I'll take my time and read it. I just don't tend to watch documentaries like this, I prefer cold hard facts written down which I can then re-read and question as I go along.

That may be the way you take infomation in Furie but I prefer to watch the links. If you are reading a review of a link you are reading someones opinion of the link without seeing the evidence & forming your own opinion.

I agree with gavins comment about the film " A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" I thought & said exactly the same thing about it to a friend after I watched it for the first time. I think the intro with the bible bit & rockets etc. is not needed and it should have cut to the chase but if you make it through the film it is an interesting peice of footage to the puzzle.

Furie said-

Bart Sibrel doesn't even believe the Space Shuttles go to space, so the question is, has anything ever been to the moon. Where do you pick up on some theories and reject others?

I personally think the space shuttles have been into orbit but I dont think any man has gone to the moon. I could be convinced otherwise but I think that if man had been there wouldnt be so many things out of place. If you watch any soap opera you will see that most of the time the stories start with a lie & the lie escalates. That is how I view the moon landings. If they had been to the moon the way they tell us . Then I dont think these questions and pieces to the story that dont pan out would exhist.
Everyone can see they took off but the photo evidence & the video evidence & the moon rock samples are all under debate and have been for many years because there are lots of things that dont seem to fit. The astonaughts not swearing on the bible or talking through these matters in interviews doesnt help either.
I too found the "Astronaughts Go Wild" film painfull to watch. I said earlier that I dont think Bart Sibrel is a nice man & I enjoyed watching Buzz Aldrin punch him. But I watch the film & I think to myself that If I was them and I had walked on the moon I would swear on the bible anytime. Why dont they? What is the problem? If they just did it wouldnt it take the wind out of Bart Sibrels sails? Bart Sibrel challenges them to take him to court. Why dont they?
Furie your Grandad sounds like a very honourable man and I have respect for any serviceman or woman. But it is an unfair comparison as Normandy landings are not in question as there is nothing that doesnt fit that story so it doesnt stand out to be questioned because the element of a lie is not there.
When we are done with this debate about the moon landings a 9/11 debate would be interesting as there is a classic example of how the story wont rest because there are so many pieces that dont fit or sit right but that is for another post :)

As for the computer issue I know that you work with computers so you will have to wait for me to do research deeper to come back to you on that in detail but as the owner of four 48k spectrums and knowing how unreliable they were I would not like to risk my life on one to the moon.

As far as the comment about MPs. I think that some of them start out as honest people with good intensions but I dont think those peole ever make it to the top unless they go bad. Most top politicians all over the world come from a few bloodlines. For example Bush senior & Junior are both related to Clinton & Obama and the list goes on. Look it up. But really that should be another post in itself.

In answering the last three points -

1. Why the hoax at all? NASA had the money, the craft and the technology.

Because the companys making the equipment for Nasa made Billions of dollars and no one minds them getting the tax payers cash as long as they deliver a good flag waving moon landing. Then in turn the companys who make the cash fund the politicians & the only loser is the tax payer.

2. Why do the Russians (with spies in US government and NASA) believe it happened? They have the most to gain from refuting it.

Because although we are told that there is hostility between Russia & America really it is a big show like wrestling. You go and watch wrestling. It looks real but really the wrestlers are probably mates . And you never get to see the person who tells them who is going to win before the fight do you? Please dont tell me you thing wrestling is for real? Thats all the cold war is. BS just like most major conflicts. A good way for people to make cash selling arms and medicine etc. If you need proof check out the Gorbachev/Regan masonic handshake on youtube. Two cheeks on the same arse.

3. How over 40 years has the conspiracy been kept quiet, considering it involves hundreds of thousands of people?

Well there have been people questioning it from the start so its not really that quiet but somehow I dont think that If someone came forward with strong evidence to prove it was fake they would put them on the news at ten. Do you? Do you think that if someone did spill the beans on there death bed that the press would report it? Freedom of the press is BS too. The news papers & TV are owned only by a few people who fund politicians. How are you going to hear the truth? Murdoch owns SKY & Virgin & the goverment pulls the strings at the BBC. Thats how things are kept quiet. You and me are being fed storys about rooney and the x-factor while the real news is in small print somewhere. Well I must be a conspiracy nutter then. Where is my straight jacket? Does anyone know who got knocked out of x-factor ? :p
 
Well, I've decided to have a crack at this debate thing... so here goes. :p

I personally think the space shuttles have been into orbit but I dont think any man has gone to the moon. I could be convinced otherwise but I think that if man had been there wouldnt be so many things out of place. If you watch any soap opera you will see that most of the time the stories start with a lie & the lie escalates. That is how I view the moon landings. If they had been to the moon the way they tell us . Then I dont think these questions and pieces to the story that dont pan out would exhist.

Let's start here. First, if we have the technology to launch a massive shuttle into space, have the booster rockets disengage with precise timing, get the shuttle out of the atmosphere without it burning up, release the external tank, complete whatever mission is being done, which can include sending astronauts out into space, and then safely return to earth with thousands of variables involved, I think we have the technology to send people to the moon.

And, to your second point, the reason why these questions and such have been raised is because there are people who a. Trust nothing the government says and views everything as conspiracy or b. Like to start things like this. (I'm not saying you're either of these types of people, just that they do exist).

Everyone can see they took off but the photo evidence & the video evidence & the moon rock samples are all under debate and have been for many years because there are lots of things that dont seem to fit. The astonaughts not swearing on the bible or talking through these matters in interviews doesnt help either.
I too found the "Astronaughts Go Wild" film painfull to watch. I said earlier that I dont think Bart Sibrel is a nice man & I enjoyed watching Buzz Aldrin punch him. But I watch the film & I think to myself that If I was them and I had walked on the moon I would swear on the bible anytime. Why dont they? What is the problem? If they just did it wouldnt it take the wind out of Bart Sibrels sails? Bart Sibrel challenges them to take him to court. Why dont they?

As furie explained, that can be accounted by the fact that Sibrel tricked them into this interview and then asked very offensive questions that would put anybody up in flames, questions that tried to negate the astronauts' credibility. No one likes that at all, and if someone did that to me and then demanded I swear on the Bible or go to court to prove I'm being honest, I don't think I'd do it either.

Here's furie's exact words so you can see them again:

furie said:
Bart Sibrel set up "fake kids TV interviews" with the astronauts. He pretended that they were going to be filming a show for kids where they interviewed people who had walked on the moon. Bart lured the astronauts onto camera with him, then barraged the astronauts with questions about if the moon landings were real or not. He then confronts them, asking them to swear they did it. Of course, you only see the "aggressive cut". You don't see the rest of it.

They are all, without fail, utterly offended by this. They have been duped by this guy so he can come along and accuse them of not doing something. These guys risked their lives for the "American Dream", and they are offended by anybody questioning that. They were all goaded.

Furie your Grandad sounds like a very honourable man and I have respect for any serviceman or woman. But it is an unfair comparison as Normandy landings are not in question as there is nothing that doesnt fit that story so it doesnt stand out to be questioned because the element of a lie is not there.

The thing is, Normandy could be in question for the same reasons as you're giving for the moon landings being in question, with different proof of course. It's obviously not, but if someone really believed it, they could have probably started some big conspiracy.

1. Why the hoax at all? NASA had the money, the craft and the technology.

Because the companys making the equipment for Nasa made Billions of dollars and no one minds them getting the tax payers cash as long as they deliver a good flag waving moon landing. Then in turn the companys who make the cash fund the politicians & the only loser is the tax payer.

But why would companies have needed to make any equipment at all if they were faking everything? If companies were making billions and billions of dollars by constructing equipment for NASA, NASA obviously had to do something with that equipment.

2. Why do the Russians (with spies in US government and NASA) believe it happened? They have the most to gain from refuting it.

Because although we are told that there is hostility between Russia & America really it is a big show like wrestling. You go and watch wrestling. It looks real but really the wrestlers are probably mates . And you never get to see the person who tells them who is going to win before the fight do you? Please dont tell me you thing wrestling is for real? Thats all the cold war is. BS just like most major conflicts. A good way for people to make cash selling arms and medicine etc. If you need proof check out the Gorbachev/Regan masonic handshake on youtube. Two cheeks on the same arse.

I don't really see how you can compare wrestling on TV with the Cold War and relationships between two (at the time) hostile countries. It's like comparing "Saving Private Ryan" with WWII, and saying they are the same. They are obviously not, one is a form of entertainment and the other was a real, true war. Honestly, not a strong argument at all.
 
Philthy said:
That may be the way you take infomation in Furie but I prefer to watch the links. If you are reading a review of a link you are reading someones opinion of the link without seeing the evidence & forming your own opinion.

I'll read a synopsis, or the actual pages of the people involved (or people working with them). However, it's difficult because the people making the theories are making a lot of money out of book sales and the programs - they don't want people actually reading their stuff for free. So most of it is second hand.

The problem with watching something is that you're not watching something real. It's much easier to be deceived by clever camera work and editing. You can see this in Astronauts out of control. The film makes you think he's approaching them in the street off the cuff - when in reality it's a situation controlled and set up by Sibrel and edited to make the astronauts look bad.

Somebody recently said "you can't trust the media" ;)

Also, as you read, you can pick up on a "fact" and then open research on it. So you essentially "pause" and then you have the text in front of you to search on. It took me a while, for instance, to find details of the lunar lander skin thickness and why it wouldn't be ripped open on landing. First I had to find details of people saying it would, which then gave me the research criteria to find out the reason they were... misguided.

Watching a program, it's difficult to do that pause. Or it is for me anyway.

Philthy said:
I personally think the space shuttles have been into orbit but I dont think any man has gone to the moon. I could be convinced otherwise but I think that if man had been there wouldnt be so many things out of place.

The thing is, so far nothing has been shown to be out of place. Just a few self confessed experts claiming things are wrong.

Philthy said:
If you watch any soap opera you will see that most of the time the stories start with a lie & the lie escalates. That is how I view the moon landings. If they had been to the moon the way they tell us . Then I dont think these questions and pieces to the story that dont pan out would exhist.

Soap operas are fiction though. They are a lie to start off with. Every time the questions and pieces of evidence are proven to be wrong (which is every time so far) - doesn't that make you think that possibly the conspiracy is the lie? It works both ways. The conspiracy so far contains more that is false, ill researched, misguided, misunderstood and sometimes just plain made up; than the actual moon landing tale.

Philthy said:
Everyone can see they took off but the photo evidence & the video evidence & the moon rock samples are all under debate and have been for many years because there are lots of things that dont seem to fit.

So far, every question about the photographs and video has been explained. The moon rocks have been examined by tens of thousands of academics and students around the globe. The radioactive isotopes present in them prove they're not from the earth, but from the moon. To change the radioactive isotopes would require such a monumental effort and money that it would make the moon landings look like a trip to Tesco.

The Russians brought back moon rocks. These too have been studied. The remote collection system managed to pick up about 1% (I can't remember the exact figure, sorry) of the amount of rock a human can pick up. Robotoic technology was in its infancy then and they just couldn't bring back good samples. A human (with hands) can collect significantly more.

The rocks brought back are used for teaching students. They have been confirmed real by thousands upon thousands of people.

CMonster covers a lot of other bits.

If the astronauts, having their integrity questioned HADN'T been insulted and angry about it, then I'd have been suspicious. These guys have lied for 40 years. They're the biggest cheats and liars in the history of the world. Yet they won't carry on this lie for one bloke to appease his conspiracy theory? They've been lying 40 years, why would they be angry about being asked to lie once again?

CMonster said:
Because the companys making the equipment for Nasa made Billions of dollars and no one minds them getting the tax payers cash as long as they deliver a good flag waving moon landing. Then in turn the companys who make the cash fund the politicians & the only loser is the tax payer.

Exactly. They made the stuff to take a man to the moon. They kitted them all out. They sent all that kit into space. They then just went "hold on... We could do this right now, or we could just bring them back and pretend. Yeah, that's a great idea. We CAN do it, we'll just choose not to in a hoax that will be the hardest thing in history to ever keep quiet".

We'll ignore things like the fact people actually followed the rocket launch, it's orbit and it leaving orbit. Not a single person saw the astronauts land , or continue orbiting the earth. They launched, orbited, then disappeared for three days. They either hung black around their craft, or went to the moon. They certainly went somewhere, but everyone following the rocket around earth can tell you 100% - it didn't return until the return journey.

Philthy said:
2. Why do the Russians (with spies in US government and NASA) believe it happened? They have the most to gain from refuting it.

Because although we are told that there is hostility between Russia & America really it is a big show like wrestling. You go and watch wrestling. It looks real but really the wrestlers are probably mates . And you never get to see the person who tells them who is going to win before the fight do you? Please dont tell me you thing wrestling is for real? Thats all the cold war is. BS just like most major conflicts. A good way for people to make cash selling arms and medicine etc. If you need proof check out the Gorbachev/Regan masonic handshake on youtube. Two cheeks on the same arse.

We're told that, because it was true. I suppose Hitler and Churchill were best friends too? Wellington and Napoleon best buddies? If you study the history of post WWII and the cold war, it's all true. Again, it's looking for tiny things to point to a conspiracy later on, but you have to ignore the weight of history and actual fact.

Because of a single handshake, suddenly 50 years of history is wrong.

Philthy said:
3. How over 40 years has the conspiracy been kept quiet, considering it involves hundreds of thousands of people?

Well there have been people questioning it from the start so its not really that quiet but somehow I dont think that If someone came forward with strong evidence to prove it was fake they would put them on the news at ten. Do you? Do you think that if someone did spill the beans on there death bed that the press would report it? Freedom of the press is BS too. The news papers & TV are owned only by a few people who fund politicians. How are you going to hear the truth? Murdoch owns SKY & Virgin & the goverment pulls the strings at the BBC. Thats how things are kept quiet. You and me are being fed storys about rooney and the x-factor while the real news is in small print somewhere. Well I must be a conspiracy nutter then. Where is my straight jacket? Does anyone know who got knocked out of x-factor ? :p

What you're getting into here is a nesting of conspiracies.

The lunar landing conspiracy requires you to believe in another conspiracy. And that one another one, and that one another one.

Using your own soap opera point earlier. You start with one lie, that then allows you to tell another lie and another. One single conspiracy theory, then opens the opportunity for somebody to make up another conspiracy theory, which then allows for another.

Yet each of these theories needs to be explained, and they never are. As soon as you reach back to a "why" question, another conspiracy theory appears above it, and so on and so on. It's never ending.

Remember, this media that has hidden the landings hoax and protected Nixon? They also hanged Nixon out to dry with Watergate. Why are they protecting him one second, murdering him next, protecting him again the next. It just doesn't make sense. Why would the media allow Sibrel and the like the chance to make TV shows, write books, publish articles in newspapers, own websites, etc, etc, etc. These people kill everyone else willy-nilly (3,000 innocents in 9/11 ;) ). Why don't they just arrange for a fatal heart attack, or car crash for these people? They have advanced warnings the things are going to happen.

The reason is simple. They don't have that much control, and if they do, they know the stuff they're saying is wrong - so there's no point in bothering.

Just a handful of people have proposed these theories and champion them. Each and every one could have been killed before anyone else ever was told.

Oh, and as for bloodlines? You only need to go back a 1000 years and you'll find that you probably share the bloodline of pretty much everyone in the Western world. Bloodlines become mixed very VERY quickly. Plus, it's again all conjecture. It's all another theory which then needs explaining and the proofs that turn out to the wrong require another theory on top to carry on supporting it.

To quote Richard Dawkins. They're "Skyhooks", not "Cranes". The proof of the landings is a crane. It stands up all on its own and the evidence is built by the crane. The crane supports itself, because it's the truth.

The "hoax theory" requires "Sky hooks". This is something that hangs in the sky without any foundation in the ground. It's building something, but when you look, you see it doesn't bed in anywhere. So when you ask "how"? You're simply pointed at another skyhook above it holding it up. When asked to explain how that holds up, you're pointed at another skyhook. And so on and so on.
 
I've heard some arguments in my life, but doubting the cold war to prove the moon landings were faked really "takes the biscuit".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top