Three Towns Forum

Members' Lounge => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Bri Roberts on August 25, 2012, 11:12:45 pm

Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Bri Roberts on August 25, 2012, 11:12:45 pm
RIP Neil Armstrong.

Nice photograph, Ludo, but can you (or anyone else) please explain where the two sources of light are coming from.
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on August 25, 2012, 11:22:26 pm
RIP Neil Armstrong.

Nice photograph, Ludo, but can you (or anyone else) please explain where the two sources of light are coming from.

One is from the old Llandudno christmas lights and the other from here:

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2638/4109133520_6e57f284fd_z.jpg)
Reality checkpoint, Cambridge.
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 26, 2012, 12:46:25 am
Yes, one of the giants of the 20th Century has passed on.

However, I do not believe that anyone has ever landed on the moon.   (Sorry Neil)
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 26, 2012, 06:49:06 am
RIP Neil Armstrong.

Nice photograph, Ludo, but can you (or anyone else) please explain where the two sources of light are coming from.

Looks like an Olympic torch in the foreground!
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 26, 2012, 08:42:57 am
Quote
However, I do not believe that anyone has ever landed on the moon.

I assume you're joking?
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 26, 2012, 08:55:22 am
Quote
However, I do not believe that anyone has ever landed on the moon.

I assume you're joking?

Many people have a similar opinion to Fester.   It's a trifle similar to the argument as to whether there is a God or Almighty Being.  Each to his own!    >>>
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 26, 2012, 09:24:04 am
Quote
However, I do not believe that anyone has ever landed on the moon.

I assume you're joking?
:laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh: I did ask him what all the millions of people around the world that watched Apollo 11 travelling to (and returning from)the Moon through telescopes were actually looking at....  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 26, 2012, 11:24:43 am
Quote
I did ask him what all the millions of people around the world that watched Apollo 11 travelling to (and returning from)the Moon through telescopes were actually looking at....  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

...or why it's possible to bounce a signal off the laser reflector left on the moon by the astronauts...   _))* _))*
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 26, 2012, 11:57:44 pm
No Ian, sadly I'm not joking.

I have listened to many of the conspiracy theories regarding the moon landings.
I have laughed a few off, I have de-bunked many myself.
But I am left with sufficient doubts to conclude in my mind that the lunar landing in 1969, on balance, probably did not actually happen.
I am still open minded on the subject however.

Many more eminent people than myself have come forward with scientific evidence that it was impossible for it to have taken place.  I have listened to all sides, and I am 60/40 against at this point in my life.

Dave, you can scoff all you like, (and post as many laughing smileys as you like), but in 1969 people were only able to follow the rocket on telescope as far as the ionosphere.  Above that you could not track it due to the Earth's rotation and the (rather convenient) radio silence and blackout.
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 27, 2012, 09:03:18 am
I think you summed it up quite nicely:

"I have listened to many of the conspiracy theories regarding the moon landings."
 
If you want to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, you'll find reasons to believe in them.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm (http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm)

Dave, you can scoff all you like, (and post as many laughing smileys as you like), but in 1969 people were only able to follow the rocket on telescope as far as the ionosphere.  Above that you could not track it due to the Earth's rotation and the (rather convenient) radio silence and blackout.
So...Apollo 11 took off with the astronauts on board, went up into Space and returned to Earth several days later? What did they do for a few days before returning to earth...booked in at a invisible Travelodge maybe?
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 27, 2012, 09:23:29 am
Quote
Dave, you can scoff all you like, (and post as many laughing smileys as you like), but in 1969 people were only able to follow the rocket on telescope as far as the ionosphere.  Above that you could not track it due to the Earth's rotation and the (rather convenient) radio silence and blackout.

That's not quite accurate, F;  the big telescopes around the world were able to track the approach to the moon (although the question is one of resolution: how big does an object have to be before a telescope can resolve it, that is, see it as more than just a dot? As an example, a person standing next to you is easy to see and easily identifiable. But from a mile away that human is far more difficult to see, and from ten miles away is just a dot, if that. The ability of a telescope to resolve an object is, as you’d expect, directly related to the size of the mirror or lens. There is a simple relationship between mirror size and resolving power: R = 11.6 / D, where R = the angular size of the object in arcseconds. An arcsecond is a measure of angular size - how big an object appears to be: if two objects are the same physical size, the one farther away will appear smaller, and have a smaller angular size. There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree, and to give you an idea of how small a measure this is, the Moon is about 0.5 degrees = 1800 arcseconds across.  D is the diameter of the mirror in centimeters. Hubble’s mirror is 2.4 meters = 240 centimeters across. Plugging that into the formula, we see that Hubble’s resolution is 11.6 / 240 = 0.05 arcseconds. That’s an incredibly small size; a human would have to be nearly 8000 kilometers (4900 miles) away to be 0.05 arcseconds in size,), and the radio silence you mention was only induced by the plasma generation during the few minutes of re-entry.  Additionally, since the late 2000s, high-definition photos taken by the LROC spacecraft of the Apollo landing sites have captured the lander modules and the tracks left by the astronauts. In 2012, images were released showing the Apollo flags still standing on the Moon.

Some have argued that one of the main motives of conspiracists is making money from pseudoscience. In November 2002, actor Tom Hanks, who starred in the movie Apollo 13 and produced the documentary From the Earth to the Moon, was asked what he thought of the conspiracy theories. He replied: "We live in a society where there is no law [against] making money in the promulgation of ignorance or, in some cases, stupidity".

It can also be argued that the conspiracy theories are impossible because of their size and complexity. More than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences, plus 6 others who flew with them as Command Module Pilots as direct witnesses, and another 9 astronauts who orbited the moon (which proves, at least, that the Saturn-V was capable of reaching the moon, a feat which some hoax theorists claim wasn't possible.) Hundreds of thousands of people—including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers—would have had to keep the secret. It can thus be argued that it would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings,  Finally, the placing of the highly directional laser reflector units, which allows us to bounce relatively low powered lasers onto the moon and time their return to Earth (as demonstrated on the Big Bang Theory) suggests that either an alien race trying to be helpful placed them there or we actually landed on the moon.

However, the veritable Tsunami of evidence supporting the moon theories apparently means little to the deniers (who, curiously, are often the first to suggest that aliens visit us on a regular basis) so I'll leave the last word to Discover magazine:

"Once you stick your fingers in your ears and start saying "LALALALALA I can’t hear you" all bets are off, and no amount of evidence will help. The only thing to do is to go back.

And that’s just what we’re doing. Not to prove to Apollo deniers anything, of course. They can sit here back on Earth and pretend it’s flat if they want. But the rest of us will look up, look out… and shoot the Moon."
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Bri Roberts on August 27, 2012, 09:57:08 am
DaveR and Ian, if you are convinced Apollo 11 landed on the moon in July 1969, can you please explain the 2 x sources of light in Ludo's photograph?

Maybe one of you can also please explain why there are no stars in the sky?
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 27, 2012, 10:35:21 am
Quote
DaveR and Ian, if you are convinced Apollo 11 landed on the moon in July 1969, can you please explain the 2 x sources of light in Ludo's photograph?

Maybe one of you can also please explain why there are no stars in the sky?

To deal with the first point, Bri, there are numerous sources of light in any Apollo mission shot.  The lunar surface itself, for instance, is highly reflective, as you can tell on any clear night with a full moon. The rocks themselves are bleached and thus reflect light and scatter it.  Additionally, the suits worn by the astronauts were themselves highly reflective, partly to deal with the issues of radiation, and partly to do with temperature control.  Finally, the landers were swathed in reflective gold and silver foils, all of which combined to cause a lot of light sources from all angles in any lunar shots.

On the second point, all the manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the moon's surface. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Likewise, cameras were set for daylight exposure and could not detect the stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background into ink-black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed in order not to have the foreground light completely wash out the image. A demonstration of this effect is here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lamp-and-moon-example-2.JPG). The effect is similar to not being able to see stars from a brightly lit car park at night—the stars only become visible when the lights are turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon.

        An ultraviolet telescope was taken to the lunar surface on Apollo 16 and operated in the shadow of the lunar module. It captured pictures of Earth and of many stars, some of which are dim in visible light but bright in the ultraviolet. These observations were later matched with observations taken by orbiting ultraviolet telescopes. Furthermore, the positions of those stars with respect to Earth are correct for the time and location of the Apollo 16 photographs.

Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 27, 2012, 10:40:54 am
In 2009, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was launched and now orbits the moon.  It's equipped with extremely high resolution cameras, and has been sending detailed images of the moon for the past two and half years. Here's a few...

(I've included one shot during the actual manned mission, so you can compare the rover tracks
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 27, 2012, 10:43:47 am
More...
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Bri Roberts on August 27, 2012, 05:27:24 pm
Nice photos, Ian, but I did not think human beings could safely travel to the moon because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt whereas it is never a problem for spaceships etc.
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: SDQ on August 27, 2012, 07:21:40 pm
Am I the only one who thinks that this conspiracy rubbish is only tarnishing the supposed obituary of one of the biggest modern day heroes and would be better served somewhere else on the site???
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 27, 2012, 07:46:27 pm
Ian / Dave.

I can only reiterate what I said to Dave in person today, (Caffe Nero as usual)

I am an open minded person, and I am quite prepared to be convinced the authenticity of the lunar landings.
In fact, I would honestly welcome having my mind changed, because it would mean that the 'powers that be' are not really able to hoodwink the entire population of the Earth.
I still feel that there is a sufficient amount of anomalies and inconsistencies to create the envionment for some doubt.

Whilst that doubt exists, it will room for debate and there is no better place for a debate than a Forum!

Dealing with two points briefly, (from both sides)

1, Like Bri, I also understood that scientists generally agreed that it was not possible for humans to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt.  Not without 30 feet of lead shielding at least.

2, 400,000 people involved to varying degrees in the Lunar programme.  Yes, that is way  too many to keep a secret.  But, in reality 99% of them are only small cogs in a big wheel doing operational tasks.  Only a relatively small amount at the top of the pyramid would need to be 'in the know'

The conspiracy theorists have raised many anomalies, most are easily explained away, but others just cannot be.
Until that situation changes, doubt can exist.  I am intrigued, nothing more.

SDQ, the topic can be placed elsewhere by all means... I have no wish to tarnish the achievements of such a respected individual as Neil Armstrong.
But let the discussion continue.





Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 27, 2012, 08:10:43 pm
I have no wish to tarnish the achievements of such a respected individual as Neil Armstrong.
But you're accusing him of being intrinsically involved in what would be the biggest fraud/lie in history! You can't call him respected if you're saying he's an outright liar about the Moon Landings?  &shake&
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 27, 2012, 08:19:33 pm
I'm saying no such thing Dave, you know it, and you are being mischievous, Sir!

Feel free to move the debate to another topic, but please don't run a Forum if you wish to stifle debate.

Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 27, 2012, 08:25:51 pm
Quote
I did not think human beings could safely travel to the moon because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt whereas it is never a problem for spaceships etc.


It's a combination of time spent in the zones and the amount of shielding carried. The command modules were heavily shielded, using dense gold foil for instance, and the command modules spent comparatively little time in the zones themselves.  In fact, most of the irradiating the astronauts received was through cosmic radiation outside of the belts, and that seems to have been below what the US administration considers a dangerous dose.   Dealing with solar flare radiation (far more lethal than the VA Belt) is the biggest problem facing the Mars mission planners, if we're ever to get a man on Mars.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 27, 2012, 08:42:03 pm
Quote
1, Like Bri, I also understood that scientists generally agreed that it was not possible for humans to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt.  Not without 30 feet of lead shielding at least.


I have never come across any reputable Physicist or Astrophysicist saying anything remotely like that.  All the academic papers agree that it's possible to transit the VA belts, and that even without shielding the amount  of time a craft on an inter-planetary trajectory would spend in the region would not deliver a fatal dose, or anywhere near. Some of these misunderstandings come about because we're fed all sorts of nonsense with regard to radiation. A person living in Aberdeen gets a higher radiation dosage each year than folk working in a Nuclear power station. What's far more dangerous is a solar flare, because without a magnetic shield the highly energised particles flares release could kill the astronauts.

Quote
400,000 people involved to varying degrees in the Lunar programme.  Yes, that is way  too many to keep a secret.  But, in reality 99% of them are only small cogs in a big wheel doing operational tasks.  Only a relatively small amount at the top of the pyramid would need to be 'in the know'

I suspect there too many specialist jobs involved for it to be kept secret. All the mission payload specialists would know if something was being fudged but - in the final analysis - I'd simply go for Occam's Razor.

Quote
The conspiracy theorists have raised many anomalies, most are easily explained away, but others just cannot be.

Fair enough, and that's exactly what a forum is for.  If you post the points you feel cant be explained, then we can all weigh in.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 27, 2012, 08:50:18 pm
What makes me wonder about this (and I say wonder, not necessarily disbelieve), is that since that date no other person, company, or country has repeated the exercise.   I ask myself why?
 WWW
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 27, 2012, 08:51:31 pm
Cost?  I think the Apollo missions took such a chunk of the US GDP that even they had to stop.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 27, 2012, 08:56:07 pm
What I honestly don't understand is why people would want to believe such nonsense conspiracy theories? Is it so they can nod knowingly whilst saying "I know what's really going on" to themselves?  :laugh: It's not being open minded, it's just believing any old b*llocks in my view.  &shake&
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 27, 2012, 08:57:25 pm
Cost?  I think the Apollo missions took such a chunk of the US GDP that even they had to stop.

Russia and China have both been capable of affording it as the technology had been proved for them!
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 27, 2012, 09:04:43 pm
What makes me wonder about this (and I say wonder, not necessarily disbelieve), is that since that date no other person, company, or country has repeated the exercise.   I ask myself why?
 WWW

Aliens warned them off!
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 27, 2012, 09:05:33 pm
Interestingly, there's some evidence that the Russians got a man on the moon, but they didn't survive.  Once the US had made it, the USSR publicly abandoned all its Lunar efforts, which gave the US the chance to shut up shop and save the money.  China was technologically way further behind, and were spending all their money on trying to feed their billions.  China is probably the best placed to do it now, but I'm betting that private investors will start to head the race, before the  big militaries get involved again.  But who knows....
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 27, 2012, 09:14:09 pm
The three issues I would raise for debate, are amongst the main ones which make me suspicious.

I am genuinely wanting to hear concise and plausible answers to these point.... to date, I never have.

Here goes..

1, Over several days, the Apollo 11 mission visited several craters, and named them.
However, when you look at the footage they are absolutely identical in every respect, down to the last little rock.
Almost like a film-set, one might argue.

2, When the lunar module blasted off back to Earth at the end of the mission, the event was filmed.
But strangely the camera smoothly followed the path of the vehicle in its upward and then diagonal flightpath.
Almost as if someone was stood there holding the camera?
I do not believe that remote control cameras of today's standard were in existence back then.

3, Quite a significant number of NASA officials have come out over the years, and stated that all might not have been as it seemed on several Apollo missions.  However, due to an equally high number of convenient 'car accidents' ... none of those people survived long enough to give much detail.


Dave, you might think the issue is bo##ocks, but I think the same about several of the topics on the Forum.
So, I tend to stay off them and not comment.
Why would you not do likewise on this subject?   $hands$

Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on August 27, 2012, 09:23:15 pm
China is probably the best placed to do it now, but I'm betting that private investors will start to head the race, before the  big militaries get involved again.  But who knows....

I think you may find it might be a nation rather closer to home: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-11201179 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-11201179)   http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/isleofman/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8974000/8974794.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/isleofman/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8974000/8974794.stm)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 27, 2012, 09:28:08 pm
3, Quite a significant number of NASA officials have come out over the years, and stated that all might not have been as it seemed on several Apollo missions.  However, due to an equally high number of convenient 'car accidents' ... none of those people survived long enough to give much detail.
Could we have some proof of this claim? I don't mean from nutjob websites, I mean from reputable news sources.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 27, 2012, 10:06:52 pm
Could we have some proof of this claim? I don't mean from nutjob websites, I mean from reputable news sources.

Which reputable news source would you suggest - or, indeed, are there any out there?   
 WWW
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 27, 2012, 10:18:12 pm
No Dave, I would have pasted in links if such 'reputable' news sources were available.
Such is the nature of clandestine and suspicious matters.

Whatever article I posted would immediately be dismissed by you as 'nut-job'  so whats the point?

Nor can I find a reputable newspaper that states that OJ Simpson murdered his wife and lover.... but we all know the truth don't we!

Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on August 27, 2012, 11:09:29 pm
(http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/5882/crosvilleonthemoon.jpg)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 27, 2012, 11:16:15 pm
 _))*  very good, and we know it happened because the story was once in the Sunday Sport, so it must be true!  ;D  But wait, no tyre tracks from the bus!...... :)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on August 27, 2012, 11:29:28 pm
_))*  very good, and we know it happened because the story was once in the Sunday Sport, so it must be true!  ;D  But wait, no tyre tracks from the bus!...... :)

I believe the bus featured in the Sunday Sport was a London Routemaster - which just goes to show, you can wait four and a half billion years for a bus - and then two come along at once....
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 27, 2012, 11:31:44 pm
 :laugh: I wonder if you can see these buses with a good telescope? I've tried with my binoculars but no luck!  ;D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 28, 2012, 07:28:00 am
No Dave, I would have pasted in links if such 'reputable' news sources were available.
Such is the nature of clandestine and suspicious matters.

Whatever article I posted would immediately be dismissed by you as 'nut-job'  so whats the point?

Nor can I find a reputable newspaper that states that OJ Simpson murdered his wife and lover.... but we all know the truth don't we!
But if a well known scientist died, it would be mentioned somewhere. Otherwise...maybe it never happened? How about a list of names and dates of death?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 28, 2012, 07:40:44 am
What makes me wonder about this (and I say wonder, not necessarily disbelieve), is that since that date no other person, company, or country has repeated the exercise.   I ask myself why?
 WWW

Aliens warned them off!

Make your own mind up....       http://www.ufocasebook.com/moon.html (http://www.ufocasebook.com/moon.html)


Did you ever wonder why the Moon landings stopped and why we have not tried to build a Moon Base? It does seem like a better and easier idea than a floating space station with no access to any raw materials or supplies? According to the NASA Astronaut Neil Armstrong the aliens have a base on the Moon and told us in no uncertain terms to get off and stay off the Moon!



Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 28, 2012, 08:18:59 am
From that same website:

"Milton Cooper, a Naval Intelligence Officer tells us that not only does the Alien Moon Base exist but the U.S. Naval Intelligence Community refers to the Alien Moon Base as "Luna," that there is a huge mining operation going on there, and that is where the aliens keep their huge mother ships while the trips to Earth are made in smaller "flying saucers"."

"According to a former NASA employee Otto Binder, unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets picked up the following exchange:

NASA: What's there? Mission Control calling Apollo 11...

Apollo: These "Babies" are huge, Sir! Enormous! OH MY GOD! You wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other spacecraft out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They're on the Moon watching us!"


:laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 28, 2012, 08:35:36 am
I thought you would like that! So many different views on this subject, fascinating! But which one is right?  :)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 28, 2012, 08:41:30 am
Quote
When the lunar module blasted off back to Earth at the end of the mission, the event was filmed. But strangely the camera smoothly followed the path of the vehicle in its upward and then diagonal flightpath.  Almost as if someone was stood there holding the camera?
I do not believe that remote control cameras of today's standard were in existence back then.

And you'd be correct. The camera was attached to the lunar rover, and operated - allowing for the delay - by a technician on Earth, so - in effect - someone was holding the camera.  On Apollos 11, 12, and 14, on which no rovers were taken to the Moon, there were no pictures taken of the lunar surface ascent.  Because of the signal delay between the moon and the Earth, the camera operator had to start sending the command to "tilt" to the camera a couple seconds (1.3) before the module actually launched. He missed the ascent almost entirely on Apollo 15, got a lot better on Apollo 16, and nailed it almost perfectly on Apollo 17. If you ever see footage of the module ascending, it's probably from Apollo 17.

Quote
Quite a significant number of NASA officials have come out over the years, and stated that all might not have been as it seemed on several Apollo missions.  However, due to an equally high number of convenient 'car accidents' ... none of those people survived long enough to give much detail.

Not one single reputable and documented source has ever - to the best of my knowledge - seriously and conclusively disproved the moon landings. There are plenty of nut jobs conspiracy theorists who do, but not one scrap of verifiable evidence has ever been produced.  It's also worth remembering that some time after the Berlin wall fell vast archives of files from the KGB and the USSR government detailed the landings. Independent tracking stations in Spain, Australia and Chile also tracked the missions in their entirety.   

Quote
Over several days, the Apollo 11 mission visited several craters, and named them.However, when you look at the footage they are absolutely identical in every respect, down to the last little rock. Almost like a film-set, one might argue.

The Apollo 11 mission only spent 2 hours - not several days - on the Moon's surface (they were landed for about 16 hours in total), and - given the shortage of transport (no rover, either) - they had to walk everywhere.  I have thousands of the moon shots and I agree that once you've seen one crater, you've seen them all.  Impact craters tend to look very similar when they exist in a largely stable environment, without weather and where the light is constant and unwavering.

Fester - the reality is that the wealth of academic documentation, the huge body of independent verification and the results of both the Chinese photography of the Lunar surface which has revealed the lunar modules, the flags and footprints and the discovery of the USSR's archive concerning what was arguably the most scrutinised endeavour of all time relegates those who wish to exploit people's paranoia for their own financial reward to the deserved category of malicious and mendacious malcontents.


For more balanced perspectives:

http://www.space.com/ (http://www.space.com/)
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 28, 2012, 08:46:05 am
Quote
I thought you would like that! So many different views on this subject, fascinating! But which one is right?

I don't think there are 'so many different views'.  I believe there's the sum total of all academic research, the independent verification, the lunar rocks, given to most of the world's developed countries for analysis and the witness testimonies of all those involved on the one hand, and the deceitfully crafted fiction, designed to make the authors bucket loads of cash on the other.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 28, 2012, 08:49:57 am
Quote
Did you ever wonder why the Moon landings stopped and why we have not tried to build a Moon Base? It does seem like a better and easier idea than a floating space station with no access to any raw materials or supplies?

A moon base is exactly what we need, although it seems a space elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) just might supersede it.But actually an orbital space station is far, far easier and cheaper to build than a moon base. And perhaps that statement alone demonstrates just what a bizarre and uninformed site that really is.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 28, 2012, 08:51:53 am
Quote
I believe the bus featured in the Sunday Sport was a London Routemaster - which just goes to show, you can wait four and a half billion years for a bus - and then two come along at once....

Groan    _))* _))* _))*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 28, 2012, 09:55:51 am

Nor can I find a reputable newspaper that states that OJ Simpson murdered his wife and lover.... but we all know the truth don't we!

And many of us have our own idea of what happened to little Madeleine McCann!   :(
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 28, 2012, 09:58:06 am
She's not in this secret alien moon base, is she? Next room along to Lord Lucan and Shergar?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 28, 2012, 10:07:32 am
Is that where they are? 

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=92573 (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=92573)

Enjoy!
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 28, 2012, 10:09:44 am
That's sponsored by the tea party...  :o
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 28, 2012, 10:14:31 am
 Must be true if it's the tea party (who are in no way odd  :-X )  ;D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 28, 2012, 10:15:59 am
 _))* _))* _))*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 28, 2012, 10:24:56 am
And there's a lot about the interesting Milton Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper) out there, too... :o  Among other things, he claimed to have been a prominent Mason (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/cooper_m.html)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 28, 2012, 11:58:57 am
There is definitely a Masonic Lodge on the Moon.

And as another piece of interesting information, I actually OWN a part of the Moon, bought for me by my Son and Daughter in December, 2005.  It is in F-4 Quadrant Charlie, Lot number 009/1672.   I have the Title Deed, a Map of the Location, the Lunar Constitution and Bill of Rights.   I also have the Lunar Mineral Rights for the plot.

Now - not having the time (or the inclination) to visit my Lunar outpost, I am willing to dispose of it in its entirely and will be pleased to receive offers from anyone who wants to live on a big lump of green cheese, a few thousand miles from Llandudno.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 28, 2012, 12:41:18 pm
If they sold you a piece of the moon, how did they get to own it in the first place? Can I say that I own Uranus?  :D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: pkevin on August 28, 2012, 01:31:56 pm
If the Moon Landings where faked, wouldn't the "soviet union" told the rest of the world?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 28, 2012, 02:03:53 pm
If the Moon Landings where faked, wouldn't the "soviet union" told the rest of the world?
Exactly the point I made to Fester yesterday, they would have jumped at the opportunity to embarrass the USA.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 28, 2012, 02:20:12 pm
...as would China....
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 28, 2012, 04:42:03 pm
If the Moon Landings where faked, wouldn't the "soviet union" told the rest of the world?

Unless they were suckered in like lots of other people!    Equally, was Yuri Gagarin really inside his Vostok Spacecraft when he supposedly was the first human in space?   
:P

A little Space IQ Test available here, what is fact and what is fiction?

http://www.space.com/550-fact-fiction-10-questions-test-space-iq.html (http://www.space.com/550-fact-fiction-10-questions-test-space-iq.html)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Paddy on August 28, 2012, 07:27:41 pm
Buzz Aldrin's response to the dis-believers!

http://www.break.com/index/buzz-aldrins-feeling-on-a-fake-moon-landing-2362936 (http://www.break.com/index/buzz-aldrins-feeling-on-a-fake-moon-landing-2362936)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on August 28, 2012, 07:41:13 pm
If the Moon Landings where faked, wouldn't the "soviet union" told the rest of the world?

Unless they were suckered in like lots of other people!    Equally, was Yuri Gagarin really inside his Vostok Spacecraft when he supposedly was the first human in space?   
:P

A little Space IQ Test available here, what is fact and what is fiction?

http://www.space.com/550-fact-fiction-10-questions-test-space-iq.html (http://www.space.com/550-fact-fiction-10-questions-test-space-iq.html)

Easy-peasy - perfect 10!
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on August 28, 2012, 07:43:59 pm
Buzz Aldrin's response to the dis-believers!

http://www.break.com/index/buzz-aldrins-feeling-on-a-fake-moon-landing-2362936 (http://www.break.com/index/buzz-aldrins-feeling-on-a-fake-moon-landing-2362936)

A brilliant navy right hook from Buzz there - Bart Sibrel deserved every bit of it, he was behaving like a total a**hole (he even admitted it two weeks later).
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 28, 2012, 09:29:35 pm
Buzz Aldrin's response to the dis-believers!

http://www.break.com/index/buzz-aldrins-feeling-on-a-fake-moon-landing-2362936 (http://www.break.com/index/buzz-aldrins-feeling-on-a-fake-moon-landing-2362936)

A brilliant navy right hook from Buzz there - Bart Sibrel deserved every bit of it, he was behaving like a total a**hole (he even admitted it two weeks later).
What a jerk that guy was, calling Buzz a coward when all he's ever done in his sad life is make up crackpot conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on August 28, 2012, 09:59:52 pm
What a jerk that guy was, calling Buzz a coward when all he's ever done in his sad life is make up crackpot conspiracy theories.

agreed.

Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on August 28, 2012, 10:09:43 pm
This was one of the photos I took the evening I met Buzz at the Royal Geography Society in London - it was a meeting I will never, ever forget. He did not seem like a liar to me.

(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9671/buzzaldrin3.jpg)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: born2run on August 28, 2012, 11:09:48 pm
Personally I think the moon does exist

Ali G - Buzz Aldrin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKedyQQkZQ#)

 L0L
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 28, 2012, 11:53:50 pm
What a jerk that guy was, calling Buzz a coward when all he's ever done in his sad life is make up crackpot conspiracy theories.

agreed.

Hmm, but they do say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, do they not?

I'm glad I started this debate, its fascinating.
But, what it demonstrates most clearly is that for those who believe the landing were genuine then no amount of examples or dissent will make them stop and think, 'hey, that's a good point, I'm not so sure now'
Equally, for those who doubt the authenticity of the lunar landings, then no amount of 'proof' will make them accept it.

I remain undecided.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 29, 2012, 09:15:24 am
Quote
Hmm, but they do say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, do they not?

I doubt many servicemen from WWII would agree with you on that.

On a slightly different point, reverting to the observation you made about the technological capability to provide remotely tilting cameras at the mission time, NASA have always made sure that their spacecraft are equipped with 'old' technology. The Mars Rover, for instance, uses the same processor set as an Apple Mac from the early noughties.  The reason for this - and it's the same that made Cisco use 'old' tech for the Olympic BB and TV switching and routing systems - is that using 'old' tech, which is well debugged and proven is a much safer bet when you're over 100 000 000 miles away from something that goes wrong.

Quote
what it demonstrates most clearly is that for those who believe the landing were genuine then no amount of examples or dissent will make them stop and think, 'hey, that's a good point, I'm not so sure now'

That's a tad presumptuous, as it implies that everyone but you approaches the debate with a closed mind.  Is it inconceivable that people have investigated both the claims of the conspiracists and the entire saga of the moon missions and made own decisions, based on evidence? 

 WWW
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 29, 2012, 09:30:55 am
Quote
Hmm, but they do say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, do they not?

I doubt many servicemen from WWII would agree with you on that.

On a slightly different point, reverting to the observation you made about the technological capability to provide remotely tilting cameras at the mission time, NASA have always made sure that their spacecraft are equipped with 'old' technology. The Mars Rover, for instance, uses the same processor set as an Apple Mac from the early noughties.  The reason for this - and it's the same that made Cisco use 'old' tech for the Olympic BB and TV switching and routing systems - is that using 'old' tech, which is well debugged and proven is a much safer bet when you're over 100 000 000 miles away from something that goes wrong.

Quote
what it demonstrates most clearly is that for those who believe the landing were genuine then no amount of examples or dissent will make them stop and think, 'hey, that's a good point, I'm not so sure now'

That's a tad presumptuous, as it implies that everyone but you approaches the debate with a closed mind.  Is it inconceivable that people have investigated both the claims of the conspiracists and the entire saga of the moon missions and made own decisions, based on evidence? 

 WWW

Some of what you say is fair, other elements less so.
See the times of my posts, after midnight.. hence I am incredibly busy at the moment.
I have said from the outset that I have doubts but am open minded... and also added that I genuinely want to be wrong on this.
But, I will consider your points and respond when I return from work, late this evening.

I often wonder though Ian, whether you have ever in your life used the phrase, 'I could be wrong''
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 29, 2012, 09:35:23 am
Certain personality types are more inclined to believe conspiracy theories -  but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you :-))) A good article about that is here (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies).

One of Nixon's senior aides, G. Gordon Liddy,  wrote "The problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the squealers from spilling the beans. So there’s a good chance that the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true."

As Michael Shermer, of Scientific American, writes "Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition. Examples of these processes can be found in journalist Arthur Goldwag’s marvelous new book, Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies (Vintage, 2009), which covers everything from the Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group to black helicopters and the New World Order. “When something momentous happens, everything leading up to and away from the event seems momentous, too. Even the most trivial detail seems to glow with significance,” Goldwag explains, noting the JFK assassination as a prime example. “Knowing what we know now ... film footage of Dealey Plaza from November 22, 1963, seems pregnant with enigmas and ironies—from the oddly expectant expressions on the faces of the onlookers on the grassy knoll in the instants before the shots were fired (What were they thinking?) to the play of shadows in the background (Could that flash up there on the overpass have been a gun barrel gleaming in the sun?). Each odd excrescence, every random lump in the visual texture seems suspicious.” Add to these factors how compellingly a good narrative story can tie it all together—think of Oliver Stone’s JFK or Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, both equally fictional."
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 29, 2012, 09:37:25 am
Quote
I often wonder though Ian, whether you have ever in your life used the phrase, 'I could be wrong''

Many times, Fester, especially when debating issues on which I didn't have the facts.  It's what pushed me to investigate things as thoroughly as I could.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 29, 2012, 10:53:19 am
Quote
See the times of my posts, after midnight.. hence I am incredibly busy at the moment.
I have said from the outset that I have doubts but am open minded... and also added that I genuinely want to be wrong on this. But, I will consider your points and respond when I return from work, late this evening.

Fair enough, F, and I apologise if I gave the impression I thought you were trying to duck the issue.  I've edited my previous post to remove the suggestion.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 29, 2012, 11:11:21 pm
Evening all,
To be fair Ian (to you), I wasn't looking to duck the issue, instead there were 3 reasons why I didn't reply in full to each point.
1, Laziness on my part, as the post and links you made were quite long and I couldn't actually get round to studying them all in detail.
2, Your intellect is superior to mine, and if I devoted a year to it, I would not be able to discover sufficient material to combat or disprove your points.  You have beaten me up with your brain!
3, It has been a few years since I last investigated this matter and I needed to refresh my memory on the long list of issues which tweaked my suspicions.  I shall now have the opportunity to do that, courtesy of a fellow Forum member who visited me today to lend me a DVD documentary on the subject.

I shall get to grips with the topic again over the next few days, (family visitors again for the next 2 days!!)  then I shall revon here.

In the meantime, Ian, your logical and clinical points have indeed shifted my opinion.... and I thank you for them.
They may well be the correct explanation.   However, I am neither 100% convinced that it happened, nor 100% convinced that it didn't
Maybe I am destined always to be in that limbo.

In the meantime, seeing as certain forum members have PM'd me with supportive comments, but are reluctant to join in the debate, may I request an anonymous ballot be set up?
Question in 3 parts.
Are you 100% certain that the NASA Moon landings were genuine?
Are you 100% certain that the NASA moon landings were faked?
Are you unsure to any degree that the NASA moon landings were genuine?

By the way...Moderators are not allowed to vote multiple times!  :laugh: :laugh:


Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 30, 2012, 07:20:42 am
Quote
I am neither 100% convinced that it happened, nor 100% convinced that it didn'tMaybe I am destined always to be in that limbo.

Descartes would argue that we can never really know anything for certain:

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum  I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I exist
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on August 30, 2012, 07:33:31 am
I've set the poll up, F, but not used the final question, as its structure would lead almost everyone to vote on that  option.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Bri Roberts on August 30, 2012, 08:06:54 am
That being the case, Ian, then won't members be left telling a fib when having to answer one of the two remaining options?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 30, 2012, 09:15:36 am
As I am not 100% convinced one way or the other - I am unable to cast a vote.   I suspect that many others will be in the same position.  Some people believe a mirage is there when they see one but as we know it isn't - or is it?   >>>
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 30, 2012, 09:19:08 am
Is anything at all real, or is everything just an illusion? Who knows?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 30, 2012, 09:25:36 am
Maybe Fester's not real?  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 30, 2012, 09:52:25 am
 :laugh: how can we tell, it could all be a big dream!
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 30, 2012, 11:32:09 am
Is anything at all real, or is everything just an illusion? Who knows?

In fact, are we all here, in the sense of being present?    The answer to the alternative is self evident! 

Here is an interesting read: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Reason%20for%20our%20existence.htm (http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Reason%20for%20our%20existence.htm)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: SDQ on August 30, 2012, 12:21:19 pm
Under the circumstances would it not be more logical to remove the 100% part and just have it as do you think they did or didn't go to the moon?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on August 30, 2012, 12:36:50 pm
We seem to need a poll to decide what goes into the first poll  _))*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Bri Roberts on August 30, 2012, 06:27:08 pm
Why does the total number of members voted not equal the number of votes cast? ?{}?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: SDQ on August 30, 2012, 06:41:09 pm
Why does the total number of members voted not equal the number of votes cast? ?{}?


Another conspiracy!  :o
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 30, 2012, 06:51:34 pm
It's called massaging the figures!     :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: pkevin on August 30, 2012, 07:06:32 pm
I don't think it's massaging the figures, it's bad coding as the script is written in php, numbers start at zero so 0 - 10 is 11.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 30, 2012, 07:28:09 pm
I don't think it's massaging the figures, it's bad coding as the script is written in php, numbers start at zero so 0 - 10 is 11.

Makes no sense  .  When I did Maths 0 - 10 equated to minus 10 !  This PHP sounds like rubbish to me.  _))*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: pkevin on August 30, 2012, 07:44:15 pm
sorry, not minus ten but zero to ten.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 30, 2012, 08:16:49 pm
sorry, not minus ten but zero to ten.

Thanks for that - I was just about to seek a refund of my school fees!   :D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Bri Roberts on August 30, 2012, 08:44:12 pm
Am I the only one able to EDIT POLL at the top?   $hands$
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on August 30, 2012, 09:00:52 pm
Am I the only one able to EDIT POLL at the top?   $hands$

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! ;)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 31, 2012, 08:46:49 am
Currently, 76% of Forum members who have voted that think that the Moon Landings definitely took place.  Interesting....  ;)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Bri Roberts on August 31, 2012, 09:34:54 am
Yes, that is very interesting, DaveR, when as many as 24% believe it was a hoax.

Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 31, 2012, 11:19:23 pm
Interesting how the poll had to be created differently to the one proposed.

Even more interesting how roughly 30% of those who have voted are CERTAIN that the lunar landings were faked.
Which makes me wonder what percentage of the public are in some degree of doubt?

I have had the chance to re-acquaint myself with the detail of the subject, and have been watching some footage that troubles me for many reasons.  Some scientific, some more intuitive.

Scientifically, it is the footage the Earth which was filmed IN COLOUR from the darkened window of the spaceship as it was on its way the moon.
The astronauts said that they had the camera pressed against that window, and nothing could come between it, as the Earth got apparently smaller and smaller.
In fact, on numerous occasions, an astronauts arm was clearly visible, which meant that the camera was just being moved further  from the window, to make the Earth appear further away.
On close-up, you can see that the Earth actually fills the entire window at all times, and the land masses which are visible are only small parts of continents, and not entire continents as you would expect.
It seems clear that the Apollo 11 mission never got much further than the low orbit that the Space Station occupies to this day.

Also, I stress that the astronauts had COLOUR cameras.
But the momentous filming of the lunar landings was in appalling quality black and white over the entire time they were 'on the moon'
The US and worldwide TV networks were banned from having any live footage, and they were given only the delayed footage from the US Federal govt control room.... not from NASA itself.

Finally, it seems very odd that following such a momentous achievement, the astronauts gave only one, very bizarre and controlled press conference, and rather than being elated, they were jittery, nervous and disjointed when asked the very few questions which were allowed.
I would even use the words 'cowed' and 'downbeat' to describe their body language.
I will try to upload a link to that press conference.

Following this, they gave very few interviews on the subject every again.
When they did, it was always seperately, and they even contradicted themselves on what had originally been said.
(Why were there no stars?, the BBC's Patrick Moore asked) ... Neil Armstrong  said he couldn't remember.
Michael Collins said he didn't really know if they had seen any!
Years later when asked, oddly, he remembered the stars much more clearly.

It took until the 25 year anniversary of the landings, for Neil Armstrong to make a public speech on the subject.
In that speech, he referred to how 'layers of truth' may be peeled away in the generations to come.
A cryptic thing to say in my opinion?

I will now search for the press conference footage, some days after the 'splashdown', I would be interested  see what people think.





 
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on August 31, 2012, 11:31:39 pm
But if a well known scientist died, it would be mentioned somewhere. Otherwise...maybe it never happened? How about a list of names and dates of death?
Before Mr Fester starts asking more questions, he could perhaps answer this one I posed several days ago?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 31, 2012, 11:33:55 pm
Take a look at the press conference... three rather uncomfortable minutes viewing.

Psychotic apollo11 press conference RKO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY#)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on August 31, 2012, 11:59:01 pm
.... here, for anyone who can be bothered is the entire 1 hour and 23 minutes of the Apollo 11 press conference.

Apollo 11 Press Conference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI#)

It is 47 or so minutes in to it when Patrick Moore asks the question about where were the stars?
It solicited a somewhat uncertain answer from 2 of the astronauts.

Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 01, 2012, 07:25:39 am
You never answered my question about all the scientists that have supposedly been killed in car crashes? If you want to question things, you must be happy to answer questions also or withdraw the assertion.  WWW
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 01, 2012, 09:06:10 am
Quote
Scientifically, it is the footage the Earth which was filmed IN COLOUR from the darkened window of the spaceship as it was on its way the moon.

Once you investigate this, it's surprising just how much time and how many extraordinarily qualified people have spent - collectively - many years trying to examine and prove or disprove the multiplicity of theories and assertions made by so many groups. It's all out there, F, and if you really want to find it out then all you have to do is sit in front of a computer for several months following the resultant Google links. Everything you query is easily explained, but it takes time to find it and post it and I'm afraid I don't have the time.

What two things do interest me, however, is firstly that those who assert the entire endeavour was a hoax have never,  in the masses of papers and sites I've seen, provided one single piece of unequivocal evidence.  But it's the second thing which I find the more fascinating. Almost without exception, conspiracists do not simply subscribe to a single theory of conspiracy, nor do they collectively or coherently identify the alleged conspirators. Often, in fact, and if you delve sufficiently deeply, you discover that conspiracy theories originate with one person - which in itself is slightly odd - but one person who claims credentials and then who - this time without exception - makes a lot of money from books, articles, TV appearances, licensing deals, merchandising, patenting and - well, you get the picture. 

It can be informative examining memberships (where listed) and ownerships  of various conspiracy sites, too; very often the same names who doubt the moon landings are the same names who are convinced that the 9/11 attacks were the work of the Bush administration, the same people who believe passionately the various Dan Brown stories, and - perhaps most disturbingly -  that Denver International airport is built atop a secret city, controlled by the New World Order which -  in conjunction with the Masons - is seeking to utterly dominate the world.

People will always see conspiracies, and those who believe every Apollo astronaut was a Mason (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9cd_1179849088) rank alongside those who are convinced the moon is edible. But one thing has always puzzled me: why do those who doubt the West could make it onto the moon subscribe so easily to the notion that aliens have a base there?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: dusty on September 01, 2012, 10:41:09 am
I've just watched the interview,yes they look very uncomfortable. Wouldn't you think though that if they had the sort of characters to sign up for such a massive hoax that they'd have the gall to see it through and act to the end. And surely with the way technology has improved in the last 43 years that someone somewhere would have uncovered some definitive proof. having said that conspiracy theories can be very convincing.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: SDQ on September 01, 2012, 11:34:28 am
They could just have been uncomfortable with the realisation that their life's work has just elevated them from being mere airmen to front page news and the rest of their lives is going to be spent answering questions to people who wouldn't have given them a second glance prior to this mission.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: born2run on September 01, 2012, 12:06:39 pm
The thing that makes me wonder - is all the conspiracy theorists that say because it hasn't happened since it must have been faked. But surely if it was a fake it would not be difficult to fake it again to lessen suspicion.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on September 01, 2012, 02:13:01 pm
The thing that makes me wonder - is all the conspiracy theorists that say because it hasn't happened since it must have been faked. But surely if it was a fake it would not be difficult to fake it again to lessen suspicion.

Except of course that everyone would be looking out for a fake!   It's like a Magician, he will never repeat a trick to the same audience.  (Unless it's "Chase the Lady" of course!).   :o
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on September 01, 2012, 02:45:40 pm
(http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/7549/festeronthemoon.jpg)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 01, 2012, 07:22:42 pm
Truly excellent, Ludo!  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 01, 2012, 07:30:48 pm
 _))* _))* _))*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on September 01, 2012, 08:33:24 pm
 L0L brilliant!  $good$
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on September 01, 2012, 09:38:40 pm
Collect the set!

(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2811/festeronthemoona1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on September 01, 2012, 10:11:38 pm
interesting advert board!  ;D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: born2run on September 01, 2012, 10:12:06 pm
Looks faked to me  _))*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 01, 2012, 10:43:29 pm
interesting advert board!  ;D
:laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on September 02, 2012, 01:41:22 am
I was kind of dreading looking on this topic tonight, to see if anyone had dissected the NASA press conference and suddenly made me think, ''yes of course, how stupid of me, it was all genuine and I as wrong''

But no!   Cleverly photoshopped pictures of 'kiosks' on 'lunar' surfaces and laughing smileys is all I see.
Hilarious they may be, but hardly constructive, and hardly helpful in a sensible debate.
So where does all this take us?

Ian, in his inimitable style says (paraphrasing) that 'no one has ever produced unequivocal evidence that the lunar landings were a sham'
But, I would counter that by saying that the opposite is true. That being, by putting forward hoardes of anomalies that have never been properly explained, then by 'a death of a thousand cuts' .... it is reasonable to assert that the lunar landings were faked.

Apart from the shifty and embarrassed behaviour by these pioneering astronauts, (who incidentally, and suspiciously all resigned from NASA less than a month after the Apollo11 ''mission'') ... I find it incredibly hard to believe that in the 1960's, where everything was switches and buttons... we possessed the capability and technology to send human beings to the moon and return them safely

In closing, I believe that Apollo 11 blasted off successfully, attained an orbit of approx 350 miles, (as did Soyuz and other similar missions of the day) ... and returned to Earth a few days later, as it was politically and financially expedient to do so.

Anyone who feels that governments are not capable of such vast cover ups needs to look at the JFK assassination and the Atom Bomb (Manhattan project)

Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: born2run on September 02, 2012, 02:23:41 am
I was kind of dreading looking on this topic tonight, to see if anyone had dissected the NASA press conference and suddenly made me think, ''yes of course, how stupid of me, it was all genuine and I as wrong''

But no!   Cleverly photoshopped pictures of 'kiosks' on 'lunar' surfaces and laughing smileys is all I see.
Hilarious they may be, but hardly constructive, and hardly helpful in a sensible debate.
So where does all this take us?

Ian, in his inimitable style says (paraphrasing) that 'no one has ever produced unequivocal evidence that the lunar landings were a sham'
But, I would counter that by saying that the opposite is true. That being, by putting forward hoardes of anomalies that have never been properly explained, then by 'a death of a thousand cuts' .... it is reasonable to assert that the lunar landings were faked.

Apart from the shifty and embarrassed behaviour by these pioneering astronauts, (who incidentally, and suspiciously all resigned from NASA less than a month after the Apollo11 ''mission'') ... I find it incredibly hard to believe that in the 1960's, where everything was switches and buttons... we possessed the capability and technology to send human beings to the moon and return them safely

In closing, I believe that Apollo 11 blasted off successfully, attained an orbit of approx 350 miles, (as did Soyuz and other similar missions of the day) ... and returned to Earth a few days later, as it was politically and financially expedient to do so.

Anyone who feels that governments are not capable of such vast cover ups needs to look at the JFK assassination and the Atom Bomb (Manhattan project)

I don't want to take this anymore off topic than it already is, so I apologies. But the JFK assassination is something of an interest of mine. I'm interested to know what you think was covered up Fester?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on September 02, 2012, 06:42:26 am
Must be about time to mention the Illuminati  :)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 02, 2012, 09:00:14 am
I was kind of dreading looking on this topic tonight, to see if Fester had answered my question about the NASA scientists supposedly killed in car crashes and suddenly made me think, ''yes of course, how stupid of me, it was all staged and I as wrong''

But no!   Yet more questions to divert attention away from the issue is all I see.
Interesting they may be, but hardly helpful in a sensible debate.
So where does all this take us?

 :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 02, 2012, 10:50:18 am
 _))* _))* _))*

Quote
But, I would counter that by saying that the opposite is true....... it is reasonable to assert that the lunar landings were faked.

Actually, no. As I said, the facts are there, and the anomalies fully explained, but it takes time to find them.  Any one can stand and say 'That's not true - it wuz faked!" about anything,  but I contend that those making that assertion - about any event, really - have to provide some form of unequivocal evidence - at least one scrap - if they expect to be taken seriously. If it was all a big con, then at least one tiny bit of indisputable evidence must exist. It was the sixties, after all.   And why confine it to Space? How about religion?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 02, 2012, 12:42:06 pm
And, finally...


LiveLeak.com - Banned in America: Classified Moon Landing Footage (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e56_1213435211)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ludo on September 02, 2012, 02:04:10 pm
(http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2632/festersays2.jpg)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUCILq6J2yU# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUCILq6J2yU#)



Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 02, 2012, 05:58:51 pm
 :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: SDQ on September 02, 2012, 07:25:11 pm
Please tell me everyone involved in this discussion is watching Moonwalk One on the Discovery channel, it's followed by One Giant Leap: A Neil Armstrong Tribute.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 02, 2012, 07:52:14 pm
I am.  It's very grainy, and the music is dreadful. It does, however, illuminate rather nicely one comment by Fester:

Quote
I find it incredibly hard to believe that in the 1960's, where everything was switches and buttons... we possessed the capability and technology to send human beings to the moon and return them safely

Actually getting them there and back was probably the simple part. After all, it's only fairly simple celestial mechanics. The tough part would have been finding a loo....

 WWW
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on September 02, 2012, 09:00:49 pm
Loo nar?  ;D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on September 02, 2012, 11:40:09 pm
I was kind of dreading looking on this topic tonight, to see if Fester had answered my question about the NASA scientists supposedly killed in car crashes and suddenly made me think, ''yes of course, how stupid of me, it was all staged and I as wrong''

But no!   Yet more questions to divert attention away from the issue is all I see.
Interesting they may be, but hardly helpful in a sensible debate.
So where does all this take us?

 :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

Actually Dave, seeing as you told me today that you didn't even spend 3 minutes watching the EVIDENCE that I posted of the astronauts press conference, (yet you felt free to comment on it) .... then I just couldn't be arsed spending a lot more time getting that list together.  What would be the point?


Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 03, 2012, 08:24:40 am
You're certainly correct about the 'uncomfortable viewing' the press conference makes but I suspect that could easily be attributed to tensions within the astronaut group themselves, the reluctance of men trained to work in isolated circumstances having to face a roomful of combative press from around the globe and also the simple fact that they were a long way from their own comfort zones. These were men used to being in charge and working to strictly defined parameters; facing the press can't have been easy or indeed even manageable. But I think you put your finger on it when you observed:

Quote
Anyone who feels that governments are not capable of such vast cover ups needs to look at .,.. the Manhattan project

but the Manhattan project itself leaked like a sieve, with Karl Fuchs being the lead leaker. And surely that's the point, isn't it? If something as big and as serious as the creation of Nuclear Weapons can't be kept secret, when entire organisations were created for specifically that purpose, how is anyone expected to believe that a comparatively open and straightforward project such as sending people to the moon for a couple of hours was in reality the imaginative project of a few cunning tricksters who managed to pull off the greatest con-trick of all time, and leave not one solid, indisputable piece of evidence?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on September 03, 2012, 10:44:11 pm
I see that 31.6% of members who have voted by now are 100% certain that the lunar landings were faked.
I could boost that figure, but I am NOT CERTAIN.

I would say that 31.6% is a significant minority.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on September 03, 2012, 10:46:17 pm
If the poll was widened to include those who just have some doubt, (as I originally requested), then it is fair to assume that less than 50% of people are 100% certain that the lunar landings were genuine.

Quite an amazing thought really.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 03, 2012, 10:48:26 pm
A significant minority of Americans think Elvis is still alive - do you agree with them?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on September 03, 2012, 10:49:44 pm
No Dave, I think he is Dead!   Why do you ask?   $elvis$ $elvis$
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 03, 2012, 10:54:31 pm
How do you know? Surely, if so many people think Elvis is still alive, then it is a strong possibility?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on September 03, 2012, 11:12:19 pm
I doubt that over 30% of people think that Elvis is alive Dave.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on September 04, 2012, 07:57:22 am
They get confused with all the Elvis impersonators!  :)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 04, 2012, 08:09:50 am
I doubt that over 30% of people think that Elvis is alive Dave.
Oh. So, in your view,  it's the level of 'significant minority' that determines whether something is likely to be true or not?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 04, 2012, 08:30:06 am
Lots of fascinating stats on here

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-hoaxes-of-all-time.php (http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-hoaxes-of-all-time.php)


 WWW WWW WWW
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on September 04, 2012, 09:37:42 am
I doubt that over 30% of people think that Elvis is alive Dave.

There is one thing wrong with this discussion - no one has yet said to which Elvis they are referring!   Which just goes to show that so far everyone, in a way, is correct.  If we now define the Elvis as being Elvis Aaron Presley, one time Rock and Roll singer, Private in the American Army etc. etc  then the argument can get somewhere!

And, of course, he is still alive!   I saw him in Burger King only last week!    :D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on September 04, 2012, 10:10:13 am
 So has the Mars Rover really landed on Mars or is it in a film set? With modern computer effects who knows? (for the record I'm sure it is on Mars  ;D )
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on September 05, 2012, 12:06:31 am
I too am quite sure that the UNMANNED Mars rover landed on Mars.

It's the issue of getting human beings to the moon and back in 1969 that I have doubts about.

What's your view Merddin?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Welshmunchkin on September 05, 2012, 01:44:40 am
I've been  watching this thread with interest to see how it would develop, but  seems Fester is a lone voice, so I'm going to join in by saying, at risk of the usual ridicule, that in the early years I had doubts about the moon landing, but in more recent years, as more evidence has come to light, I have become convinced that it never happened. I'm afraid I'm one of those annoying people who refuses to believe everything I'm told by people in authority, as I think they have their own agenda. there are MANY subjects in which I think we are being misled, and I think we should question everything, keep an open mind and trust our instincts.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on September 05, 2012, 06:34:08 am
I too am quite sure that the UNMANNED Mars rover landed on Mars.

It's the issue of getting human beings to the moon and back in 1969 that I have doubts about.

What's your view Merddin?

As you ask I think that they did go but were warned off by aliens, I do find the UFO subject interesting and cannot believe that we are alone in the universe! On the otherhand I certainly do not believe every strange story that we hear!
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 05, 2012, 07:46:33 am
Quote
I'm afraid I'm one of those annoying people who refuses to believe everything I'm told by people in authority, as I think they have their own agenda. there are MANY subjects in which I think we are being misled, and I think we should question everything, keep an open mind and trust our instincts.

There's a lot in what you say, but instincts alone are not a substitute for empirical evidence, rational thought and sound logic. The main reason why those who believe the lunar landings were all faked - besides the wealth of evidence, the sheer numbers involved, the mere fact that no government anywhere has ever managed to keep anything secret for long - are being hoodwinked in a merciless way is actually based on simple logic.

Even if not one of the 400 000 people involved in putting men on the moon has ever 'broken ranks', even if all the world's developed nations have been studying the samples of lunar rock returned from the moon for more than forty years, even if the Chinese and Indians have photos of Apollo LEMs taken by their own orbiters, even if sending men to the moon and brining them back is nowhere near as fearsomely complex for the burgeoning technology of the '60s as some would have you believe and even if independent monitoring stations around the world - including those in actively hostile nations, such as Russia, China and other non-US countries all - without exception - verified the success of the US missions, albeit grudgingly, (one that didn't BTW - was Uganda under Idi Amin, who alleged it a fascist plot, so good company there, then) - the simple, utterly and glaringly obvious flaw in the conspiracists' theories is that in the history of the world no secret has remained so for any length of time.  And there's good reason.  Keeping any secret is actually quite a stressful experience, and the bigger the secret the harder it is for any individual to keep it.  But according to the conspiracists, we're expected to believe this wasn't a small secret; this was a colossal, a mammoth exercise in duplicity and obfuscation which - as the Manhattan project had amply proved some time earlier - was simply too big to work.  In WWII it was common knowledge that no matter how crucial the secret, how vital it was to saving lives, you simply can't trust people to keep it secret.

Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 05, 2012, 08:29:51 am
I was kind of dreading looking on this topic tonight, to see if Fester had answered my question about the NASA scientists supposedly killed in car crashes and suddenly made me think, ''yes of course, how stupid of me, it was all staged and I as wrong''

But no!   Yet more questions to divert attention away from the issue is all I see.
Interesting they may be, but hardly helpful in a sensible debate.
So where does all this take us?

 :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

Actually Dave, seeing as you told me today that you didn't even spend 3 minutes watching the EVIDENCE that I posted of the astronauts press conference, (yet you felt free to comment on it) .... then I just couldn't be arsed spending a lot more time getting that list together.  What would be the point?
As you well know, I did watch that video and, as I pointed out, whatever the demeanour of the astronauts, it could be construed as 'evidence' they were involved in a conspiracy.

If they were smooth and polished in their answers at that press conference, you would no doubt say it was because they had been well rehearsed.

If they were nervous and hesitant in their answers at that press conference, you would no doubt say it was because they did not feel confident lying to the world's media.

To go back to the 'list of scientists' issue, you presented it as a fact that a lot of NASA scientists had died in a car crash, yet you now say that you don't actually have the facts to support that statement? You ask questions of others, but don't accept the answers from Ian even when supported by reams of facts...yet make assertions yourself without any facts of any sort to back them up!!

There's only one icon needed here...  &shake&
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on September 05, 2012, 10:01:01 am
Calm down Dave!

As YOU well know, when we actually spoke face to face yesterday, had not looked at the clip before that point.
Now you have, and that's fine.  You see it a different way to me.  Thats what a Forum debate is all about, surely?
I also told you that you will get your list, when I have some time to search.... you KNOW how busy I am.
Work.... pub with you....darts....home...work... pub with you...... (and so the circle continues)

Ian's assertions are indeed powerful, they are based on sound logic and the weight of numbers.
The only flaw I see there, (as I've mentioned before) is that not 400,000 people would be 'in on it', only a few at the highest level.
For example, if say 100,000 were needed to launch a rocket, then that is exactly what they did.  But it doesn't mean it penetrated the lethal Van Allen radiation belts and went to the moon and back.

But, Ian's logical points explain much, but there are always loose ends and niggles which have never sat well with me.
Thats why I remain on the fence, and I have still NOT voted in the poll.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 05, 2012, 10:17:56 am
So...if Apollo 11 spent 3 days in orbit around the Earth, how come no-one saw it? Considering there were hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers, foreign governments etc etc, all keenly watching progress of the lunar expedition?

What you're saying just does not make any sense?

&shake&
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on September 05, 2012, 11:38:32 am
In defence of the disbelievers, it would be fair to mention that Professional Illusionists can make Sherman Tanks and Battleships disappear for periods of time.  Why not a Lunar Space Ship?    ZXZ
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on September 05, 2012, 11:50:00 am
That's generally only in front of a specific audience, Yorkie, not millions of people spread out around the world.  :roll:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on September 05, 2012, 12:17:41 pm
I will do nothing more than to refer you to the The Philadelphia Project, U.S.S. Eldridge and Project Rainbow.  I think Ian will consider it an excellent read, others may also!   ££$
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 05, 2012, 03:21:33 pm
Quote
Professional Illusionists can make Sherman Tanks and Battleships disappear for periods of time.  Why not a Lunar Space Ship

As Dave points out, that requires the knowing connivance of a large group of people, al of whom are aware of the trick and prepared to keep their mouths shut.,   Although, eventually, they do talk.  It's a tad trickier to conceal several tons of metal hurtling around the globe at 17000 mph.

Quote
not 400,000 people would be 'in on it', only a few at the highest level

You might have a valid point, were the launching of an interplanetary mission not such a specialised field. Once you realise, however, that right down to the guys who 'top up the tank', as it were, details matter and would be known to everyone involved.  Almost all the 400 000 involved were academically well qualified people;  when NASA started recruiting the best and the brightest fought tooth and nail to get a job - any job - that secured them a place in the team. Now, to keep it all a big secret, how were the Chinese and Russians persuaded not to say anything? Not to mention every nation with an astrophysical research chair, and the means to research the subject.  In simple terms, that means lots of highly accurate telescopes - radio and optical - and if you can seriously imagine that this mass of electronic and optical instrumentation around the globe was aimed anywhere other than at Apollo 11 during the entire mission, then you have a better imagination than any author.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 05, 2012, 03:23:55 pm
Quote
The Philadelphia Project, U.S.S. Eldridge

Good fun, indeed.  They made a film out of it, I seem to remember.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on September 05, 2012, 05:00:45 pm
This is an excellent read on the Debunking of the Moon Hoax Debate and covers more points than has been mentioned on this Forum.  Every aspect of doubt as to the Apollo landing and the Moon walk seems to be covered in some detail.  But in the end one will still have one's own opinion, unless convinced by some of the counter arguments presented.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm)

 [*££]    ££@@
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: SDQ on September 05, 2012, 09:36:43 pm
This is an excellent read on the Debunking of the Moon Hoax Debate and covers more points than has been mentioned on this Forum.  Every aspect of doubt as to the Apollo landing and the Moon walk seems to be covered in some detail.  But in the end one will still have one's own opinion, unless convinced by some of the counter arguments presented.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm)

 [*££]    ££@@


I enjoyed reading that, very informative. It would be interesting if some of the doubters read it and reported back if it has helped them make a judgement.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on September 05, 2012, 11:34:52 pm
I too enjoyed reading that, and it gave some very good technical supporting evidence to refute some, maybe most of the hoax claims.
Of particular interest to me was the explaination of why there was no dust on the feet of the lunar lander.
I have always wondered this.  But now I realise that in zero gravity, dust will not 'settle'
Instead, once disturbed, it will continue to move away from the point it was disturbed.
That is the sort of answer I like, concise and unequivocal.

On some other points, the good Doctor is more fervent in his desire to end the theory, but his reasons are less understandable, and more like opinions on his part.

However, I am a reasonable man, and it did move me more towards accepting that the lunar landings could have happened.
I am not certain, I don't think anyone ever can be 100% certain,.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the article, but please bear in mind that it is only the views of one individual.

It is written in a style that 'beats you over the head', and rather than debate each point, it pours ridicule on the reader for daring to think it!   
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on September 06, 2012, 07:05:49 am

  But now I realise that in zero gravity, dust will not 'settle'
Instead, once disturbed, it will continue to move away from the point it was disturbed.
That is the sort of answer I like, concise and unequivocal.

The moon is not zero gravity though, I think it is about one sixth of the earth, just to confuse matters a little more!  ;D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 06, 2012, 07:31:10 am
Quote
But now I realise that in zero gravity, dust will not 'settle'
Instead, once disturbed, it will continue to move away from the point it was disturbed.
Quote
it is about one sixth of the earth

The gravity, as such, isn't the issue, F; the really important factor is the lack of any discernible atmosphere. On Earth, our constantly changing air currents  create eddies and vortices and causes all manner of strange things to happen, but on the Moon - with almost no atmosphere to speak of - each particle follows the same trajectory as its neighbour. Probably looks delightful :-))
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on September 06, 2012, 07:33:06 am
Pleased that it has been enjoyed by two of you (and maybe Ian also)!   I also enjoyed reading it but am still somewhat sceptical!   
Hey Ho,  Think I'll book a trip with Sir Richard Branson!   Or I would, had the mid-week Lottery not by-passed me again, as usual!    ;)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on September 06, 2012, 07:46:18 am
Quote
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the article, but please bear in mind that it is only the views of one individual.

I'd disagree with the use of the word 'views';  what he offers is - in the main - verifiable fact to back up his assertions. One big problem he has - in common with  every other serious scientist who's attempted to counter the conspiracists - is that he's had to condense his rebuttals into the same length and complexity as the original assertions in the Fox movie (I refuse to say 'documentary). One instance of this is the 'where were the stars?' FAQ. It requires a reasonable knowledge of solar radiation, reflectivity  coefficients and so on to establish that the sun's glare on the moon would have been far, far more intense than anything seen here on Earth.  Effectively, the Sun is a continuously exploding thermonuclear bomb, and both our several miles of atmosphere and our magnetosphere do a credible job of attenuating its otherwise fatal impact on us.  With none of that to protect the astronauts, they were equipped with heavily shielded and darkened helmets, the combination of which would render relatively faint starlight invisible against the intense and unwavering visible radiation from the Sun.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Tosh on December 09, 2012, 02:02:47 pm
Here it comes again,,,,,,,, Wednesday evening, 8-00 pm, Channel 5.
Was it a hoax??????????
Of course it wasn't, I remember it well.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 09, 2012, 02:48:26 pm
Yes, Wednesday evening was real!  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Tosh on December 09, 2012, 03:11:54 pm
If you look closely in the far distant lunar landscape you might spot a Triumph Herald parked in the shadows.
The colour of the car helps it to blend in with the surroundings.
It's a mystery alright.
This is a definite programme for Fester to watch, again.
It might even become a major talking point, who knows?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 09, 2012, 05:35:07 pm
If you look closely in the far distant lunar landscape you might spot a Triumph Herald parked in the shadows.

Yes and Hank Marvin is driving it!  ;D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Tosh on December 09, 2012, 07:03:33 pm
I thought it was Elvis.
 8)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 11, 2012, 07:31:47 am
Last Lunar landing was 40 years ago today...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/11/apollo_17_40th_anniversary/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/11/apollo_17_40th_anniversary/)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 11, 2012, 11:01:26 am
This could be a tricky one....if you believe man never landed on the Moon...  :laugh:

A new company run by former NASA executives announced Thursday that it will send you to the moon by 2020.

Round-trip cost for two: $1.5 billion, which the CEO called a relative bargain.

"We're selling to nations, corporations and individuals," Alan Stern, also president of Golden Spike Company, told Space.com. "Get in line — and I think it's going to be a long one."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2012/12/06/moon-private-missions-golden-spike-billion-dollars/1752287/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2012/12/06/moon-private-missions-golden-spike-billion-dollars/1752287/)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 14, 2012, 08:24:12 am
We watched the programme last night and now I'm 50/50 on if it was faked or not! Before I was 99 per cent certain that they did land on the moon!   :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Gwynant on December 14, 2012, 08:40:35 am
             I entirely agree with you on that M.E. Before I saw that programme I was 90% to 10% sure that there were lunar landings, now I'm only 60% to 40% in agreement. Although the programme was tilted towards proving that they were faked, and even though the photos of the debris etc. left on the moon taken by NASA from Earth through telescopes could be faked (as they were issued by NASA), there were a great many people involved in the  mission control etc who could have spoken out by now.  As the final comments on the programme stated, I guess we will have to wait till another Nation lands there (besides the USA!) to get decisive proof on the matter.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 14, 2012, 08:55:26 am
The Chinese already have taken pics of the debris.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 14, 2012, 10:16:40 am
The problem is that we can trust no one! When both sides produce very convincing arguments who do you believe?  ???
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: SDQ on December 14, 2012, 08:02:16 pm
I can't believe people are still questioning the lunar landings after all this time. Short of physically taking you there I don't know what else NASA can do to stop all this conspiracy rubbish that keeps getting regurgitated every few years.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 14, 2012, 08:19:55 pm
The one thing that convinces me is that it is now 43 years since Neil Armstrong is alleged to have walked on the moon.  As it was such a simple exercise why has it not been repeated?  Surely there is some value on the Moon!    ZXZ   And it is not as far as Mars or Jupiter!    Z**
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: SDQ on December 14, 2012, 08:42:22 pm
The one thing that convinces me is that it is now 43 years since Neil Armstrong is alleged to have walked on the moon.  As it was such a simple exercise why has it not been repeated?  Surely there is some value on the Moon!    ZXZ   And it is not as far as Mars or Jupiter!    Z**


So even though they landed there six times but cut the Apollo program short of the planned ten because the American population were losing interest, you base your whole conviction just on the fact that they never went back?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 14, 2012, 08:49:04 pm
Yep!   But that is MY opinion and may not be the view of my relatives, friends or other members of the population!    :D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 15, 2012, 08:43:22 am
But there was no value in returning, from an economic point of view, and that's all the US public cares about. This is a country, remember,  where one of the first reactions to the slaughter of the primary school children yesterday was to suggest arming primary school teachers.   But let's not forget there is definitive proof of the lunar landings in the shape of the laser reflector arrays.  I actually witnessed a friend from Manchester Uni fire a laser at one of these arrays and get a return response. He was using the arrays to calibrate some instruments and it was truly impressive.  In fact, it is the only real evidence that we did walk on the moon, apart from the hundreds of thousands of NASA employees, aerospace employees, observatory employees around the world, telescopic sightings, radio telescope tracking information, recordings, data dumps, photos from China and Russia and so much else that only a hermit with no knowledge of science and a case of seriously degenerative paranoia could possibly doubt the veracity of the Apollo program.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 15, 2012, 08:53:23 am
only a hermit with no knowledge of science and a case of seriously degenerative paranoia could possibly doubt the veracity of the Apollo program.
Indeed. I really don't understand this obsession with conspiracy theories, the majority of which are patently half baked nonsense. It's one thing to have an open mind, it's another to believe any old rubbish that some crackpot posts on the Internet under the guise of 'research'.  &shake&
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 15, 2012, 09:58:36 am
But there was no value in returning, from an economic point of view, and that's all the US public cares about. This is a country, remember,  where one of the first reactions to the slaughter of the primary school children yesterday was to suggest arming primary school teachers.   But let's not forget there is definitive proof of the lunar landings in the shape of the laser reflector arrays.  I actually witnessed a friend from Manchester Uni fire a laser at one of these arrays and get a return response. He was using the arrays to calibrate some instruments and it was truly impressive.  In fact, it is the only real evidence that we did walk on the moon, apart from the hundreds of thousands of NASA employees, aerospace employees, observatory employees around the world, telescopic sightings, radio telescope tracking information, recordings, data dumps, photos from China and Russia and so much else that only a hermit with no knowledge of science and a case of seriously degenerative paranoia could possibly doubt the veracity of the Apollo program.

Getting a response from a laser is great but did your friend actually see someone walking on the moon?   I guess not!  Q.E.D.   ;D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 15, 2012, 10:14:08 am
only a hermit with no knowledge of science and a case of seriously degenerative paranoia could possibly doubt the veracity of the Apollo program.
Indeed. I really don't understand this obsession with conspiracy theories, the majority of which are patently half baked nonsense. It's one thing to have an open mind, it's another to believe any old rubbish that some crackpot posts on the Internet under the guise of 'research'.  &shake&

So, you think that a minority of conspiracy theories could be true! Which ones?  :twoface:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 15, 2012, 10:46:13 am
only a hermit with no knowledge of science and a case of seriously degenerative paranoia could possibly doubt the veracity of the Apollo program.
Indeed. I really don't understand this obsession with conspiracy theories, the majority of which are patently half baked nonsense. It's one thing to have an open mind, it's another to believe any old rubbish that some crackpot posts on the Internet under the guise of 'research'.  &shake&

So, you think that a minority of conspiracy theories could be true! Which ones?  :twoface:
Did I say that? The minority are fully baked nonsense!  :Pv  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 15, 2012, 12:27:47 pm
Quote
Getting a response from a laser is great but did your friend actually see someone walking on the moon?   I guess not!  Q.E.D.

To get that response you need to have a carefully positioned laser-reflective array, something which had to have been done by man.  Unless you think there's someone else up there... 

Z@@
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 15, 2012, 03:40:49 pm
The Man in the Moon, maybe?  Propped the array up using green cheese with the help of The Clangers!     $bounce$
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 15, 2012, 05:49:07 pm
 _))* _))* _))*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 15, 2012, 05:55:46 pm
The Man in the Moon, maybe?  Propped the array up using green cheese with the help of The Clangers!     $bounce$

Now is the 'man in the moon' real or is that a hoax too?  ???   :)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 15, 2012, 06:32:04 pm
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!   I'll have to think about that one, can't be controversial on every issue.   _))*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 16, 2012, 11:28:43 pm
But there was no value in returning, from an economic point of view, and that's all the US public cares about. This is a country, remember,  where one of the first reactions to the slaughter of the primary school children yesterday was to suggest arming primary school teachers.   But let's not forget there is definitive proof of the lunar landings in the shape of the laser reflector arrays.  I actually witnessed a friend from Manchester Uni fire a laser at one of these arrays and get a return response. He was using the arrays to calibrate some instruments and it was truly impressive.  In fact, it is the only real evidence that we did walk on the moon, apart from the hundreds of thousands of NASA employees, aerospace employees, observatory employees around the world, telescopic sightings, radio telescope tracking information, recordings, data dumps, photos from China and Russia and so much else that only a hermit with no knowledge of science and a case of seriously degenerative paranoia could possibly doubt the veracity of the Apollo program.

In response to that, I would repeat something I said earlier.
That being, where sufficient doubt exists, there will always be the human propensity to debate, question and oppose.
I always find it odd that those who are 100% convinced that the Lunar Landings are genuine, feel it necessary to become borderline irate in the defence of the subject.
Personally, I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince a 'seriously paranoid hermit'

To me, the most interesting point is not whether it happened or not, but that one third of those asked are 100% sure that it did not.
That is incredible when it is so relatively recent, and in the age of television and media scrutiny.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 17, 2012, 07:20:56 am
Quote
That is incredible when it is so relatively recent, and in the age of television and media scrutiny.

Well, if you want more stats that might help to explain that, remember that at least 50% of the population sport an IQ either the same as or lower than 100, by definition. By that reckoning, it's surprising to me that as few as one third lack the ability necessary to make an appropriate assessment of scientific progress. It ought to be nearer half.  But your final paragraph says it all, really. And in the US, where this sort of thing is fairly run-of-the-mill, we now find that the Sandy Hook shooter's parentage was a survivalist mother (http://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-lanza-collected-guns-2012-12), creating her own little fortress. And there are still people going round wearing foil linings to their hats and claiming that microwaves give off 'rays' to which they're allergic...
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 17, 2012, 08:09:29 am
[Well, if you want more stats that might help to explain that, remember that at least 50% of the population sport an IQ either the same as or lower than 100, by definition.
:laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 17, 2012, 08:12:20 am
In response to that, I would repeat something I said earlier.
That being, where sufficient doubt exists, there will always be the human propensity to debate, question and oppose.
I always find it odd that those who are 100% convinced that the Lunar Landings are genuine, feel it necessary to become borderline irate in the defence of the subject.
Personally, I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince a 'seriously paranoid hermit'

To me, the most interesting point is not whether it happened or not, but that one third of those asked are 100% sure that it did not.
That is incredible when it is so relatively recent, and in the age of television and media scrutiny.
It's not incredible really, mate. How many times have you told me stories about utter muppets you've encountered? These are the sort of people we're talking about.... ?{}?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 17, 2012, 08:39:45 am
What's the best way of fitting the foil inside a hat?  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 17, 2012, 10:12:03 am
What's the best way of fitting the foil inside a hat?  :laugh:

I've put the foil inside my trousers, firmly held in place by my old cricket box!    _))*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 17, 2012, 11:51:40 am
Quote
That is incredible when it is so relatively recent, and in the age of television and media scrutiny.

Well, if you want more stats that might help to explain that, remember that at least 50% of the population sport an IQ either the same as or lower than 100, by definition. By that reckoning, it's surprising to me that as few as one third lack the ability necessary to make an appropriate assessment of scientific progress. It ought to be nearer half.  But your final paragraph says it all, really. And in the US, where this sort of thing is fairly run-of-the-mill, we now find that the Sandy Hook shooter's parentage was a survivalist mother (http://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-lanza-collected-guns-2012-12), creating her own little fortress. And there are still people going round wearing foil linings to their hats and claiming that microwaves give off 'rays' to which they're allergic...

Steady on Ian, that argument assumes that only people of low IQ are within the category of those who are unconvinced by the Lunar Landings.
Given the results of the Forum poll, that would include quite a number of your membership!

I would have thought that the opposite was true, and that only people of low IQ would accept slavishly something as fact without challenging it?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 17, 2012, 01:43:02 pm
Quote
Steady on Ian, that argument assumes that only people of low IQ are within the category of those who are unconvinced by the Lunar Landings.

No, it assumes that those with insufficient intellect are most likely to be taken in by scams and conspiracy theorists.  The forum sample, BTW, is far too small to be significantly indicative of anything.

Quote
I would have thought that the opposite was true, and that only people of low IQ would accept slavishly something as fact without challenging it?

But that's exactly what those who subscribe to the conspiracy theorists' delusions are doing.  They're accepting - hook, line and stinker - every word of those who delight in misleading the masses.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 17, 2012, 02:46:57 pm
.... or, they are accepting hook, line and sinker, what the Government is telling them.
Either possibility remains.

But of course, no Government could ever be involved a cover up involving misinformation could it?  :laugh:



Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 17, 2012, 03:11:01 pm
.... or, they are accepting hook, line and sinker, what the Government is telling them.
Either possibility remains.

But of course, no Government could ever be involved a cover up involving misinformation could it?  :laugh:
Do you not think the Russians would have spotted it was a hoax and exposed it to ridicule the USA in the eyes of the rest of the world?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 17, 2012, 03:42:09 pm
Probably paid to keep quiet! Must be about time to mention the Illuminati again!  :twoface:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 18, 2012, 01:03:08 am
.... or, they are accepting hook, line and sinker, what the Government is telling them.
Either possibility remains.

But of course, no Government could ever be involved a cover up involving misinformation could it?  :laugh:
Do you not think the Russians would have spotted it was a hoax and exposed it to ridicule the USA in the eyes of the rest of the world?

Yes Dave, that is a very good point.
I will put it with all the other good points on BOTH sides of this debate, both lists are very long and intriguing.
This is why I still sit on the fence on this subject.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 18, 2012, 07:14:15 am
Quote
I will put it with all the other good points on BOTH sides of this debate

 _))* _))* _))*

You must show me some of the 'good points' on the conspiracy side then find any scientist who agrees. BTW - I wonder if a gift subscription to this society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65) might be an ideal Chrissie present for you, fester...

WWW
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 18, 2012, 07:18:13 am
Merry Xmas, Fester!

Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 18, 2012, 07:27:31 am
There are some pretty bright minds over there.  This is a cut 'n paste directly from their introductory forum:


General Introduction

Q: "Is this site a joke?"

A: This site is not a joke. We are actively promoting the Flat Earth movement worldwide. There are, admittedly, several non-serious Flat Earth posters, but they are fairly easy to identify.

Q: "I found a site called alaska.net - is it also a genuine Flat Earth site?"

A: No, alaska.net is a rather crude attempt at parody, either of this site specifically or the Flat Earth movement in general.

Q: "Why do you believe the Earth is flat?"

A: It looks that way up close. In our local reference frame, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. In addition, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

Q: "What should I do before starting a thread on Flat Earth Theory?"

A: You should ask yourself if it is a topic that is likely to have been brought up before. If so, there is a very good chance it is already addressed by the FAQ and you should be acquainted with what it says on the subject. Be forewarned, you will be directed to the FAQ if you come up with a commonly-asked question, so you might as well read what it says now. You should also run through a few threads in the relevant forum to see if there has been any recent discussion on the subject.
»
Physics

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 125,829 km (78,186 miles)   Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

In both the Davis and the Bishop model, the Earth is an infinite plane.

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

In the McIntyre model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs instead. These discs are being held above the Earth by photoelectric effect. See: Photoelectric Suspension Theory. The celestial bodies are also being suspended above the Earth by photoelectric effect in the Bishop model.

Q: "Why are other planets round, but not the Earth?"

A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

Q: "Please explain sunrises and sunsets."

A: It is a perspective effect. The sun is just getting farther away: it looks like it is disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

UPDATE:The theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration is currently being developed and reviewed by members. Once completed, Electromagnetic Acceleration will be used as an alternative in explaining sunrises, sunsets and horizons for the dark energy model only.

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites cannot orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. However, temporary space-flight is possible.

Q: "What is underneath the Earth?"

A: This is unknown. Most FE proponents believe that it is generally composed of rocks. Please note that in Hinduism, the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

Q: "Aren't the accelerating Earth models flawed? Wouldn't planes crash into the Earth as it rises up to them?"

A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes do not crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards it. The reason a plane does not crash is that its wings produce lift: when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, lift causes the plane to remain at a constant altitude.

The same thing happens if the Earth is accelerating up. The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth, which means the distance between them does not change. Therefore, the plane stays at the same height and does not crash.

Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation.

Q: "In the accelerating Earth models, why does a feather fall slower than a bowling ball?"

A: It is due to air resistance. The Earth accelerates the air, and the air in turn accelerates the feather up faster than the bowling ball. In our reference frame, it appears that the feather is falling slower than the bowling ball.

Q: "In the accelerating Earth models, how does one reach terminal velocity?"

A: Once the acceleration of the object is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the object reaches terminal velocity.

Q: "Wouldn't the Earth crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball if it's indeed a disc?"

A: The dark energy model assumes that the Earth does not possess a gravitational field. What we know as "gravity" is provided by the acceleration of the Earth.

Q: "What would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: You would become directly affected by UA as the Earth is, creating the illusion that you are standing next to it.

Q: "Why does g vary with altitude if the Earth simply accelerates up?"

A: The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull. Furthermore, a non-inertial relativistic object experiences different rates of acceleration along its length according to Special Relativity, as it is impossible for both ends to accelerate at the same rate without FTL communication between them. The front end accelerates at a lower rate than the rear end. This is why g decreases at higher altitude.

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no mor
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 18, 2012, 07:40:45 am
 L0L do people really believe that stuff? Clearly nonsense, but worlds apart from the lunar landing story.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 18, 2012, 07:45:02 am
Quote
Clearly nonsense, but worlds apart from the lunar landing story.

Is it? You might be surprised...go on the site.  You'll find a lot about NASA. 
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 18, 2012, 11:03:37 am
The Earth MUST be Flat 'cos all my maps and atlases are flat!   Z**
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 18, 2012, 03:52:32 pm
Quote
I will put it with all the other good points on BOTH sides of this debate

 _))* _))* _))*

You must show me some of the 'good points' on the conspiracy side then find any scientist who agrees. BTW - I wonder if a gift subscription to this society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65) might be an ideal Chrissie present for you, fester...

WWW

Chortle, guffaw, my sides are aching with laughter.... however the two issues are entirely unrelated, and bordering on the facetious. 
Very few people believe that the Earth is flat, whilst an enormous amount of people doubt the authenticity of the Lunar Landings.
Its the same with ghosts, aliens at Roswell, the Trojan Horse, etc...etc....
It would be a boring old world if we were all the same.


Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 18, 2012, 04:26:11 pm

It would be a boring old world if we were all the same.

Vive la difference!     $donald$
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 18, 2012, 04:38:07 pm
Yes, I like to think that I am of sound mind (mostly! ) but I am still not entirely convinced about the lunar landings, can you trust governments to tell the truth all of the time, no. NASA staff mostly could have thought it was real with just some at the top in on what really happened, it's one of many interesting conspiracy theories and it would be a duller world without them. As for the Flat earth stuff, the two things to me are unrelated.
As for ghosts and UFOs I find them fascinating, are they real? I don't know for certain, but many very credible witnesses have seen them!
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: mull on December 18, 2012, 06:10:52 pm
HA

All that Flat Earth stuff is similar to the what the Steampunkt people on the Isle of Mull publish.

There are more walking around than was ever locked up.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 19, 2012, 07:19:49 am
I defer to my honourable friend, Ludo

http://threetownsforum.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1809.msg50906.html#msg50906 (http://threetownsforum.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1809.msg50906.html#msg50906)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 19, 2012, 08:29:42 am
I defer to my honourable friend, Ludo

http://threetownsforum.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1809.msg50906.html#msg50906 (http://threetownsforum.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1809.msg50906.html#msg50906)

Ah, but I challenged your honourable friend Ludo regarding this post, ostensibly for breaking forum rules and associating me with my workplace.

Strangely, once challenged, we never heard from your honourable friend ever again!  &shake&
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 19, 2012, 09:37:51 am

Ah, but I challenged your honourable friend Ludo regarding this post, ostensibly for breaking forum rules and associating me with my workplace.

Strangely, once challenged, we never heard from your honourable friend ever again!  &shake&

However, it still remains as Case History and may be referred to by Honourable Counsel for time immemorial.

 :D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 19, 2012, 01:11:00 pm
Quote
Ah, but I challenged your honourable friend Ludo regarding this post, ostensibly for breaking forum rules and associating me with my workplace.

An unjustified challenge, too, as you have posted openly about where you work and even invited any forum members who wish to visit, giving them details of the location.  However, Neither Dave nor I have done so, and it's important that when forum members do not reveal these details openly - as you have - their rights to privacy are respected.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 19, 2012, 01:13:47 pm
It's interesting you mention Ludo.  I think I'll email him since I believe his contributions added a lot to this place.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 19, 2012, 01:27:27 pm
It's interesting you mention Ludo.  I think I'll email him since I believe his contributions added a lot to this place.
Indeed.  $good$
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 19, 2012, 01:29:37 pm
Ian, thanks for the Edit.  I thought there was no censorship on this Forum - what did I say that was wrong?

 :rage:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 19, 2012, 02:52:22 pm
Just happened to see this article in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2012/dec/13/moon-landings-faked-science-confessions (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2012/dec/13/moon-landings-faked-science-confessions)

 :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 19, 2012, 10:29:45 pm
Ian, thanks for the Edit.  I thought there was no censorship on this Forum - what did I say that was wrong?

 :rage:

I too was censored, Yorkie, ... for what I can only describe as pedantic and LUDO-crous reasons.
However, the power of the moderator is a mighty one.

By the way Ian, I don't recall ever making an open invitation for ''any forum members'' to visit me at my workplace... as to be honest that is sometimes my worst nightmare.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 19, 2012, 10:34:28 pm
It's interesting you mention Ludo.  I think I'll email him since I believe his contributions added a lot to this place.

I agree, and I feel the same about BrumBob... will you be contacting him in the same vein?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 20, 2012, 07:21:04 am
Will anyone be contacting Pentan?  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 20, 2012, 07:45:58 am
Quote
By the way Ian, I don't recall ever making an open invitation for ''any forum members'' to visit me at my workplace... as to be honest that is sometimes my worst nightmare.


http://threetownsforum.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,120.msg13818.html#msg13818 (http://threetownsforum.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,120.msg13818.html#msg13818)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 20, 2012, 08:34:35 am
Ian, thanks for the Edit.  I thought there was no censorship on this Forum - what did I say that was wrong?

 :rage:

I think I am entitled to a reply, Ian!   Even a murderer has the privilege of hearing the evidence against him!    WWW

Of course, at one time you could have sent me a PM  >>>, however you do have my email address.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 20, 2012, 01:22:48 pm
I decided to grab this topic by the scruff of its neck and sort it out.
I was asked to provide the names of scientists who had evidence to support the hoax theory for the lunar landings.
However, because such people are ridiculed anyway, I decided to tackle the problem the other way round.

Instead, I invited over 200 of the worlds most eminent scientists from the fields of Astronomy, Astro-physics, Aviation, Geo-physics, Gravitation, and many more.... to a 'summit' on this topic at 8pm last night.
I searched for them on Wikipaedia, and on the Institute of Science website.
The summit, appropriately, was the Great Orme summit.
I offered to pay all travel and accommodation expenses, all I asked in return was that they bring along any hard evidence and facts to support their position on the authenticity of the Lunar Landings.

I regret to inform this forum, that not one of them chose to attend.
Now, I for one think that this is a most damning indictment.

I feel that the argument to support the Lunar landings as being genuine has suffered a mortal blow.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 20, 2012, 01:40:33 pm
Well that will no doubt get axed in deference to all those knowledgeable (sic) people.   You are not allowed to humiliate those with supposed knowledge.  A certain person will, no doubt, now consult his large technical library and knowledge base and mount a serious defence against your damning evidence.  I'm with you buddy!
 ZXZ
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: SDQ on December 20, 2012, 01:47:50 pm
Is this an adult's forum or a kindergarten?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 20, 2012, 01:53:14 pm
Is this an adult's forum or a kindergarten?

Not aware of any age limits, or restrictions on humour SDQ?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 20, 2012, 02:05:09 pm
Is this an adult's forum or a kindergarten?

Not aware of any age limits, or restrictions on humour SDQ?
Making it funny helps a bit, though.  &shake&
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 20, 2012, 04:27:33 pm
Is this an adult's forum or a kindergarten?

Depends -  I understand that once you are off your Mother's milk and are reasonably literate, you are allowed on board!   

Z@@   TOMORROW
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: snowcap on December 21, 2012, 12:50:51 am
i agree with fes and yorkie so there
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 21, 2012, 07:35:15 am
I don't believe any of you are real and that this whole forum is a hoax! I blame the Illuminate  L0L
I'm still on the fence about the lunar landings though :twoface:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 21, 2012, 09:50:28 am
I don't believe any of you are real and that this whole forum is a hoax! I blame the Illuminate  L0L
I'm still on the fence about the lunar landings though :twoface:

Are you for real?  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 21, 2012, 09:57:43 am
Sorry, I can't reply as I do not exist!  ;D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 21, 2012, 10:08:37 am
Sorry, I can't reply as I do not exist!  ;D

Which is the conclusion that I came to when I visited your house the other day....... eerily deserted.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 21, 2012, 10:14:42 am
Four pigeons, one dove and a canary (not in a pear tree) were in residence at the time!  ;D
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Fester on December 21, 2012, 10:52:35 am
I decided to grab this topic by the scruff of its neck and sort it out.
I was asked to provide the names of scientists who had evidence to support the hoax theory for the lunar landings.
However, because such people are ridiculed anyway, I decided to tackle the problem the other way round.

Instead, I invited over 200 of the worlds most eminent scientists from the fields of Astronomy, Astro-physics, Aviation, Geo-physics, Gravitation, and many more.... to a 'summit' on this topic at 8pm last night.
I searched for them on Wikipaedia, and on the Institute of Science website.
The summit, appropriately, was the Great Orme summit.
I offered to pay all travel and accommodation expenses, all I asked in return was that they bring along any hard evidence and facts to support their position on the authenticity of the Lunar Landings.

I regret to inform this forum, that not one of them chose to attend.
Now, I for one think that this is a most damning indictment.

I feel that the argument to support the Lunar landings as being genuine has suffered a mortal blow.

I have informed the invited eminent scientists and luminaries of my displeasure with them.
I was particularly disappointed that Mr Da Vinci and his colleague Mr Isaac Newton chose not to attend.
... and as for that Patrick Moore, well I've gone right off him.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: DaveR on December 21, 2012, 11:47:28 am
 Hillarious, yes, truly hillari........ *snore*
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 30, 2012, 06:49:23 pm
TONIGHT
December 30th.  BBC2 at 21.00hrs.

Neil Armstrong - First Man on the Moon.

 _))* :laugh: D) ;) ;D 8)
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 30, 2012, 08:23:22 pm
No he wasn't.....
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 30, 2012, 09:19:12 pm
No he wasn't.....

Oh yes he was ........
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 30, 2012, 09:49:55 pm
I'm not convinced the programme was really on!  :twoface:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Yorkie on December 30, 2012, 10:14:33 pm
I'm not convinced the programme was really on!  :twoface:

I couldn't stand the suspense of knowing whether he did or he didn't, so I watched something else instead!

 L0L
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on December 30, 2012, 11:08:05 pm
I thought about watching it but I couldn't find any tin foil to put under my hat whilst watching it! You can't be too careful with radiation! :twoface:
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on December 31, 2012, 08:26:46 am
It was a good prog.  Clearly, fame affected him in a way he couldn't have imagined before the lunar landing, and of course in those days NASA had no media training for their people, like they do now.
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on June 24, 2015, 07:56:38 pm
So is the moon artificial?  I don't know but it is an interesting thought!  ?{}?


http://www.inquisitr.com/1917650/our-moon-is-an-alien-ufo-spaceship-parked-in-orbit-around-earth-ufologists-claim/ (http://www.inquisitr.com/1917650/our-moon-is-an-alien-ufo-spaceship-parked-in-orbit-around-earth-ufologists-claim/)

UFOlogists have proposed that the moon, believed to be a natural satellite of Earth, is, in fact, a huge spaceship, a gigantic UFO, parked in orbit around the Earth by an advanced technological civilization.

The proposal that the moon is an artificial satellite of Earth, specifically an alien spaceship, a massive UFO, parked in orbit around the Earth, is known as the Spaceship Moon Theory, Artificial Moon Theory, or Alien Moon Theory.
Title: Re: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: snowcap on June 24, 2015, 09:09:43 pm
turned off after 15mins, Hope they sell their books, I still think its made of cheese
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Ian on June 25, 2015, 06:56:00 am
Quote
UFOlogists have proposed that the moon, believed to be a natural satellite of Earth, is, in fact, a huge spaceship, a gigantic UFO, parked in orbit around the Earth by an advanced technological civilization.

Wonder who's collecting the parking fees?
Title: Re: The Lunar Landings
Post by: Merddin Emrys on June 25, 2015, 08:24:20 am
Good point! ☺ clamp the moon!  :laugh: