Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

[really?]

...Conspiracy and Questioning

Americans, certainly, and perhaps all the cultures of the world, love the idea of conspiracy as an explanation of how and why many events have happened. It plays to their innermost fears and hostilities that there is a well-organized, well-financed, and Machiavellian design being executed by some malevolent group, the dehumanized \them,. which seek to rob \us. of something we hold dear. As one scholar defined a conspiracy, and this represents a practicable approach to the topic, as \the attribution of deliberate agency to something that is more likely to be accidental or unintended..4 This certainly happens often enough. And in all cases these tend to be exaggerated, expanded, and complexified with every retelling.
More: http://www.smithsonianconference.org/ap ... ndings.pdf

Quick view: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... JE1Ba1hnOw

[SydneyPSIder]

funny...

and the Cold War and deep psychological need for US exceptionalism don't count for anything?

how about wireflashes, risks of failure, technical impossibility (size and power of rocket, protection required, radiation from solar flares and the van Allen belt, calculating docking rendezvous perfectly), fake moon rocks that don't match genuine unmanned probe samples, strange studio lighting artifacts, no stars in any pic whereas probes show stars, backdrop hills that look exactly like hills in Hawaii, accelerations and decelerations that are clearly impossible in science and engineering, magic movie cameras that 'flip up' with a remote when LEMs take off, staged photos that couldn't take place with cameras mounted on chests with no viewfinder, 250F heat that would fry camera film, not enough battery capacity in suits or the LEM to actually run air-conditioning, the lunar rover can't actually fit in the LEM when you look at the plans, the hatchway from the LEM base and the ascent module is too small to get through in a spacesuit, there isn't enough room to move in the cockpits with a suit, Mike Collins' crazy slip-up in post-mission interview, the so-called astronauts' clear evasion today, blue-coloured oxygen-rich skies while supposedly travelling in deep space, flipping water all over the cockpit in zero G on the live mission that could jeopardise instrumentation, taking hammers to the moon (why would you?), no tyre-tracks around the rover in many pics, no blast crater or disturbance whatsoever under the 'lander', potentially pics of one mission seen on the foot of the LEM on another mission(?), flags clearly waving in the breeze in footage, the same identical footage of one rover excursion while going in both directions, missing landers in pics (moved with cranes), artifacts of light bulbs in the sun in computer analysis, appearance of ScotchLite screen imperfections in computer analysis, and so on and so forth. Thanks Smithsonian for attempting to close off the legitimate objections. Very 'scientific' of them, eh, as they bend scientific enquiry and normal healthy scepticism to aid in the US imperial hegemony project and a grand deception.

You're a sad and tragic agent provocateur and disinformation artist, really?, I'm over the fakery -- a fake pseudoscep that works for the govt to scramble information. You can't even masquerade as a genuine pseudoscep successfully, let alone a genuine sceptical thinker.

[Arouet]

Wait- so you think the government would pay someone to post on this site that has about a half dozen regs and a couple dozen lurkers?

[SydneyPSIder]

[really?]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

So how much do you think really gets paid? And is it just really, or some of the rest of us as well?

[SydneyPSIder]

I find it interesting that there is a humungous para up there highlighting over two dozen serious anomalies with the moon landings, and a tiny para questioning really?'s bona fides, and for some reason the pseudoscep tag team is all hung up and diversionary on the little para and trying to steer conversation away from the big one. It's really interesting. No actual consideration of the 'science' of the landings or attempting to show why the dodgy stuff can't be real etc. Just an obsession with diverting the topic. Just attempts to derail threads and query other posters' thought processes. Very interesting. Not even pseudosceps?

I'll just keep pasting in the big para from time to time so it works its way up the google rankings, and freshens up the topic from time to time, will that be OK?

[Arouet]

[really?]

[Arouet]

I'm actually just as interested in the thought process as I am about the issue (actually, in this case more interested because I don't find the moon landing topic to be particularly engaging).

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

Though I don't get the reference - at least you see other possibilities!

[SydneyPSIder]