View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Dec 2012, 06:09

Arouet wrote:Bump

What???????????????????????

Since when do we have to "bump" this topic??? It's usually a little hottie.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 06:27

I dunno? Maybe Syd and Misha are on vacation? Don't they know they're supposed to notify the forum in case of absence? :)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Dec 2012, 08:11

Arouet wrote:I dunno? Maybe Syd and Misha are on vacation? Don't they know they're supposed to notify the forum in case of absence? :)

I think Syd and Misha got tired of the BS. Misha posted a bit the other day but Syd has been MIA longer. He's lurked but not posted.

<Waving "HI" to Syd and Misha>
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby really? » 19 Dec 2012, 09:41

Golly gee, it ain't no fun without them. I'm sure syd isn't finish, he's just circlein' the wagons and reloading.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 19 Dec 2012, 16:20

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Arouet wrote:I dunno? Maybe Syd and Misha are on vacation? Don't they know they're supposed to notify the forum in case of absence? :)

I think Syd and Misha got tired of the BS. Misha posted a bit the other day but Syd has been MIA longer. He's lurked but not posted.

<Waving "HI" to Syd and Misha>


Hi Syd & Arouet. I'm here. I've been quite busy on other matters. I'm fascinated by the Apollo controversy, but frankly I am a bit reticent at pushing the issue further. I think we will end up going in circles and rehashing other people's research endlessly. For now I am going to let it lie until something stirs me to post on the subject again.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby The23rdman » 19 Dec 2012, 18:45

Maybe we can have a look at the photographs again then.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 19:21

Misha wrote:Hi Syd & Arouet. I'm here. I've been quite busy on other matters. I'm fascinated by the Apollo controversy, but frankly I am a bit reticent at pushing the issue further. I think we will end up going in circles and rehashing other people's research endlessly. For now I am going to let it lie until something stirs me to post on the subject again.


If you don't want to get into it that's fine, but for the record my purpose in approaching the radiation issue as I have, is to structure the discussion in a manner that will help us avoid going around in circles. That is: first identify the questions that should be asked. See if the various proponents of either view have addressed them, and if so, have they addressed them adequately. Then presumably try to reach some kind of consensus ourselves.

The last bit might not happen, but I think the methodology gives us a shot at at least having a structured conversation about it.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 19 Dec 2012, 20:40

Arouet wrote:I dunno? Maybe Syd and Misha are on vacation? Don't they know they're supposed to notify the forum in case of absence? :)

:D No, I'm back, just rationing my time. Anyone noticed it's Xmas out there by the way? Not sure how much time I can make available to debunk the debunkers, and so on ad infinitum. We'll see.

I'm tempted to paste in a series of stills and videos that serve to discredit the Apollo missions utterly. What I find is that I follow a lot of sites over time and gather info and documentary evidence which is pretty compelling, then find that I can't bring them all back in a second with a couple of google keyword searches, the trail is gone, etc. Plus IE9 history feature keeps breaking. (Thanks for nothing, M$.)

So I will attempt to follow through on some of the most egregious examples of video and stills problems, along with the critiques of why the cameras couldn't work, couldn't focus, couldn't be pointed at things, couldn't be handled with puffy space gloves, etc. Then there's no stars in the pics, etc. It strikes me that this is a truly 'sceptical' take on what we're being asked to swallow, unlike the pseudoscep position of just scoffing at everything. It's a bit like being handed a bible in a secular age and being asked to 'believe' everything in it no questions asked, then going on to construct a complex theology around it that flies in the face of reason and other research. In the same way, we are being handed a sometimes pretty suspicious-looking 'document' by the govt and being asked to believe in it, although other interpretations are possible and are in fact demanded. In the same way, the pseudosceps here are happy to contort logic and genuine evidence. It's odd, to say the least -- they are doing the exact opposite of what a genuine sceptic should be doing when presented with anomalous evidence.

As Misha has rightly pointed out, it appears to become a waste of time, as the evidence goes unreviewed, and the examination of evidence is rejected for spurious or trivial reasons, etc. However, I will have a go, given that this site supports embedding of different media types.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby The23rdman » 19 Dec 2012, 20:50

Sydney, I've already addressed the issue of no stars. There simply isn't enough light coming into the camera to expose the stars and the astronauts/modules.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 19 Dec 2012, 20:55

The23rdman wrote:Sydney, I've already addressed the issue of no stars. There simply isn't enough light coming into the camera to expose the stars and the astronauts/modules.

But there are stars in pics taken by unmanned modules on the moon also on the lit side of the moon. So how do you explain that anomaly?

Further, how do you explain the problem of focus, of 70mm film depth of field problems, and all the other problems I've enumerated more than once here that continue to go unaddressed by pseudosceps?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby The23rdman » 19 Dec 2012, 21:09

Show me the photos if you can, please.

I have already stated that I agree that the depth of field anomaly using a large format camera needs further investigation. I'm not a moon theorist at all so I haven't delved in deeply. If someone can link me to the cameras allegedly used I can make a better informed call.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 21:14

Syd: I appreciate you coming back to the conversation (I know its the holidays - hence my joke above! :)), but I'm trying to get away from the scattergun approach to this topic which really only serves to throw too much stuff out at once which leads to not talking about any of it.

I've tried to get a constructive discussion going on the radiation issue, which either you or Misha or both of you (can't remember at the moment) considered to be an important factor. I'm happy to go into the other topics but I really think if we want to get something useful accomplished we should tackle these issues one at a time. Can we finish the radiation discussion (since I've taken the trouble to start the analysis) and then we can move onto the pictures?

But please don't just post a bunch of videos - that's not going to lead to productive discussion.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 19 Dec 2012, 21:30

Just a question: does this mountain profile in Mauna Kea, Hawaii, disturb you at all? The astronauts visited the area in 1965 for some reason. Examine the brown parts in the middle distance, the peculiar hump and hillocks on each side.

Image

Here's the same mountain profile and features that appear on the moon shots a lot, same shape, same shading and depressions, same series of hillocks to the right and left as the brown profile above. The moon's 'South Massive' mountain near the landing sites:

Image

The 'moon mountains' oddly look very rounded and weathered to me, although there is no wind or rain to do any weathering. They are also very strangely illuminated and ghostly looking. I find the contrast odd between the ghostly smooth mountains in the shots vs the very sharp rocks in the foreground. You would expect moon mountains to be somewhat more jagged and 'random' like young mountain ranges on earth -- e.g. the Alps or Himalayas -- rather than very old weathered mountains as you might find in Australia. I haven't done any study whatsoever of just how 'mountains' on the moon are formed in the presumed absence of significant tectonic plate movement, or how the supposed Apollo pics jibe with lunar topographic mapping probes for heights and so on. Presumably mountains may have formed billions of years ago when the moon was still cooling off and may have had tectonic activity.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 20 Dec 2012, 05:50, edited 5 times in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby The23rdman » 19 Dec 2012, 21:35

Those pictures are way too small to examine properly, Syd.

I'm going to back out for now and let you guys finish your discussion re radiation.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 21:38

C'mon Syd! One topic at a time please!

Or we can drop it. Just throwing out various arguments all at once will guarantee a fruitless discussion and I'll be out. I'm trying to structure this here - otherwise it is indeed pointless.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron