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

Is this how the moon was really filmed?

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.

Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby Scepcop » 22 May 2009, 05:53

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Is this how the moon was filmed?

Postby wraith » 06 Jun 2009, 10:52

sorry, but we can't see the images.
wraith
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 00:26

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby Scepcop » 08 Jun 2009, 12:07

That's odd. Sometimes they show and sometimes they don't. I guess their blocking system isn't that reliable. lol

Here are the images. Start from halfway down the page. Those are the images I tried to show here.

http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby kungfuscience » 23 Aug 2009, 22:56

That's not the best thought through link there.

If, as the site suggests, the Moon landing's were faked, how come videos of the Moon landing show dust behving in exactly the way one would expect of dust on a surface with no atmosphere? This is especially true of the videos featuring the Lunar Rover. The dust forms a perfect parabolic arch. If this was done on Earth, then the dust would not behave like that.

The ground, as shown in the videos has dust. Therefore, if we assume that it was a film set, how exactly did they fake the dust that was there? It's impossible, even now, to make a great big film set with a vacuum in it.

Seriously, give me any argument that the Moon landing was a hoax, and I can debunk it. It's one of my things. I hate to see one of our greatest scientific achievements belittled.

I implore you to have an open mind when reading about what I have to say on the matter.
kungfuscience
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 22:13

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby brett » 24 Aug 2009, 03:02

and could not all the artifacts shown just be training aids ?? - had a look at that site - and the skeptics call us paranormal believers "deluded " ?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby kungfuscience » 24 Aug 2009, 19:21

brett wrote:and could not all the artifacts shown just be training aids ?? - had a look at that site - and the skeptics call us paranormal believers "deluded " ?? :lol: :lol: :lol:


I did look at the site. It left me unimpressed.

Here's a question then - what would you actually need to see to believe that man landed on the Moon?

Conversely, I have a number of things I would need to see to beleive it was a hoax. The above question about the behaviour of the dust is a start.

Given that every single argument I have (so far) ever seen about the Moon landings being a hoax has easily been shown to be based on ignorance (for example ,those that claim there shoudl be stars in the photos, clearly not knowing how photography works), just plain wrong (the astronuats couldn't survive the van Allen belts), or a non argument (it looks like the movie Capricorn 1).

So for me to believe it was a hoax, I would want an argument that could not be refuted. I'll happily listen, I am open minded.
kungfuscience
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 22:13

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 08:56

kungfuscience wrote:That's not the best thought through link there.

If, as the site suggests, the Moon landing's were faked, how come videos of the Moon landing show dust behving in exactly the way one would expect of dust on a surface with no atmosphere? This is especially true of the videos featuring the Lunar Rover. The dust forms a perfect parabolic arch. If this was done on Earth, then the dust would not behave like that.

The ground, as shown in the videos has dust. Therefore, if we assume that it was a film set, how exactly did they fake the dust that was there? It's impossible, even now, to make a great big film set with a vacuum in it.

Seriously, give me any argument that the Moon landing was a hoax, and I can debunk it. It's one of my things. I hate to see one of our greatest scientific achievements belittled.

I implore you to have an open mind when reading about what I have to say on the matter.


I'm sorry I don't get what you're saying. What about the dust cannot be replicated on a Hollywood set? Hollywood can fake anything it wants to. Stanley Kubrick was able to replicate the moon videos too.

But look, the bottom line is it doesn't matter how many moon hoax theories you debunk or claim to debunk. No matter how many you debunk, it does NOT prove that the moon landings were real. That's my point. We can't really know either way. The people who believe that the moon landings were real and ridicule anyone who doesn't, do so on faith, technically speaking, cause they only say that cause they were TOLD that they were real.

More people would be convinced if they put a billboard up there or something that we could see with a telescope. At this point, not even the Hubble Telescope can see the flag we supposedly left on the moon.

But it is odd that we never went back in 30 years, cause it would be the first time that technology went backward. After Columbus discovered the New World, did it take 30 or 40 years for the next voyage? No. Did it take that long for the first transatlantic flight to be repeated? No. By now, there should have been moon bases on there. Instead, technology to the moon has gone a de-evolution.

There are many suspicious things about it. That's all I'm saying.

And you cannot know for a 100 percent fact that the moon landings were real. You weren't there. You are just going by what you were told. That's the truth.

So, we can't know either way.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby SeanRMR » 26 Aug 2009, 10:38

A good reason not to go back there to much is what is there to do there that can't be done on say the space station. It is a big lump of costly rock that is hard to get to.

Going to mars is far more important from a science and expanding point of view and they have with robots. Why robots is simple it is cheaper as you don't need to worry about getting them back.
SeanRMR
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 11:08

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 15:21

SeanRMR wrote:A good reason not to go back there to much is what is there to do there that can't be done on say the space station. It is a big lump of costly rock that is hard to get to.

Going to mars is far more important from a science and expanding point of view and they have with robots. Why robots is simple it is cheaper as you don't need to worry about getting them back.


Yeah well anyone can give a "reason" for something. But it's still suspicious nevertheless.

Why don't they put robots on the moon and film the surface in high quality definition? The footage we have from the moon is very grainy.

And did you know that NASA claimed to have lost the original footage, which was supposed to be of higher quality? Someone wanted to do an IMAX film on the moon landing and went to NASA and suddenly they said they lost all the original tapes. You believe that? The government has never lied before right? lol

And why did they show the grainy tapes to the public and not the original high quality tapes?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby nepravda » 27 Aug 2009, 02:49

In the middle of the space race between the US and the USSR, why didn't the Russians go to the moon?
In fact, the Russians did go. They sent a robot to photograph the site of the US moon landing. What they saw was an abandoned space buggy but NO flag.
Curious.
nepravda
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 27 Aug 2009, 02:34

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby Scepcop » 27 Aug 2009, 03:03

nepravda wrote:In the middle of the space race between the US and the USSR, why didn't the Russians go to the moon?
In fact, the Russians did go. They sent a robot to photograph the site of the US moon landing. What they saw was an abandoned space buggy but NO flag.
Curious.


I haven't heard of this one before. If true, it would be all over the news. Can you link a source for this info?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby ProfWag » 27 Aug 2009, 03:30

Just last month, the Lunar Recon Orbitor photographed the landing sites. Of course, to those who can't be convinced that their own farts smell, there is no amount of evidence that can be shown that proves anything to them otherwise.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/m ... sites.html
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby kungfuscience » 28 Aug 2009, 00:28

Scepcop wrote: I'm sorry I don't get what you're saying. What about the dust cannot be replicated on a Hollywood set? Hollywood can fake anything it wants to. Stanley Kubrick was able to replicate the moon videos too.


The dust in the moon videos behaves as if it was in a vacuum. It would not have been possible to make a great big film studio, and have a vacuum in it. Dust in an atmosphere is subject to Brownian motion. You can see this for yourself with dust caught in a beam of sunlight, or if you want to make a mess you can break open a vacuum cleaner, spill out it's contents, and watch it float about as it gets knocked about in the air. There being no air on the Moon, the lunar dust rises and descends in a perfect parabolic ark as one would expect.

But look, the bottom line is it doesn't matter how many moon hoax theories you debunk or claim to debunk. No matter how many you debunk, it does NOT prove that the moon landings were real. That's my point. We can't really know either way. The people who believe that the moon landings were real and ridicule anyone who doesn't, do so on faith, technically speaking, cause they only say that cause they were TOLD that they were real.


No. This is not like trying to prove a negative like God doesn't exist. Either people landed on the Moon or they didn't. This is also not a faith based claim, unless you count ALL knowledge you have received second hand as a faith claim. For example, I beleive in Australia, yet I have never been there, or seen it with my own eyes. This is not a faith claim. If you think it is, well, there's not a lot I cab do. However, later on you mention the Hubble Space telescope, I assume, therefore, that you beleive in its existence. The evidence for Hubble is as good as the evidence for the Moon landing.

We can know that man went to the Moon, there is a bucket load of evidence. There are a minority that make claims for it to be a hoax, and the fact that each of these arguemtns I have ever been aware of have shown to not be valid criticisms means that we can assert that man went to the Moon beyond all reasonable doubt.

[quite]More people would be convinced if they put a billboard up there or something that we could see with a telescope. At this point, not even the Hubble Telescope can see the flag we supposedly left on the moon.[/quote]

There is no point in training Hubble on the Moon. It would be a huge waste of time and money, when it could be better used advancing our knowledge, as opposed to pandering to deluded people. Also, even if it did look at the Moon and show the Lunar landing sights of the various Apollo missions, you can bet your bottom dollar that the hoaxers would claim them a fraud, as they do with the current photos and video from the Lunar surface. It is impossible to reason with unreasonable people.

But it is odd that we never went back in 30 years, cause it would be the first time that technology went backward. After Columbus discovered the New World, did it take 30 or 40 years for the next voyage? No. Did it take that long for the first transatlantic flight to be repeated? No. By now, there should have been moon bases on there. Instead, technology to the moon has gone a de-evolution.


No, it's not odd. The Moon landings were cut short as, sadly, the public actually got bored of them repeatedly going back. It costs alot to send peopel to the Moon. The money hasn't been there.

There are many suspicious things about it. That's all I'm saying.


Like what? So far i've not encountered anything suspicious. As i've said, all claims i have so far seen by moon Hoaxers have been shown to not be valid.

And you cannot know for a 100 percent fact that the moon landings were real. You weren't there. You are just going by what you were told. That's the truth.

So, we can't know either way.


That's not the best arguemnt as it applies to everything.
kungfuscience
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 22:13

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby ProfWag » 28 Aug 2009, 02:41

kungfuscience wrote: You can see this for yourself with dust caught in a beam of sunlight,

No he can't kungfu. He thinks that dust caught in light beams are spiritial "orbs." No such thing as dust to Scepcop, especially in haunted places.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Is this how the moon was really filmed?

Postby kungfuscience » 28 Aug 2009, 19:15

ProfWag wrote:
kungfuscience wrote: You can see this for yourself with dust caught in a beam of sunlight,

No he can't kungfu. He thinks that dust caught in light beams are spiritial "orbs." No such thing as dust to Scepcop, especially in haunted places.


Scepcop, is this true?

If so, what's the dust that accumulates on shelves etc?
kungfuscience
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 22:13

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests