Moon Landing, A Hoax?
- Thread starter Vaiorom
- Start date
As we all are! 
Yep, but it would have been much easier to only "go" once, and only have to fake once.
Thanks for the link Freddy, looks like an interesting forum. I can see it's mainly focused on 9/11, which is a topic I prefer anyway . I currently believe that -some- of the moon landings were faked, but I admit that I haven't studied the topic in depth. I think there are more important things.. such as what happened on 9/11.
. I currently believe that -some- of the moon landings were faked, but I admit that I haven't studied the topic in depth. I think there are more important things.. such as what happened on 9/11.Comon this is ridiculous. I will admit there are some dodgy photos of certain aspects of the moon landings. Why NASA choose to do this, I have my own theories. There are some other aspects of the moon landings, pictures, film and current scientific tools(like that mirror) that make it indisputable fact.
Thanks for the link Freddy, looks like an interesting forum. I can see it's mainly focused on 9/11, which is a topic I prefer anyway
I guess your dishonesty has no boundary.
The Mythbusters had an episode a few days ago where they tested several myths about this. They concluded that all the supposed evidence was false. They proved the shadow thing wrong by building a scale set based off one of the photos, then positioning a camara at the same angle the photo was taken. They found that the shadows that led in opposite directions, supposedly, were actually caused by the terrain of the moon.
In other words though the shadows looked like they were going in diffrent directions, in actuality, they were going in the same direction, but a decently sized mound caused one to be wider, which, from the angle the camara was at, made it look like a straight line.
In other words though the shadows looked like they were going in diffrent directions, in actuality, they were going in the same direction, but a decently sized mound caused one to be wider, which, from the angle the camara was at, made it look like a straight line.
Well... what can you say? I remember the first time I became aware of a film trying to show that the moon landings never happened. Right off the bat, I was able to debunk some of it's main claims without even having to do any research.
The one about the stars not showing up in the pictures should be debunked by anyone who has ever used a camera.
They also thought that the astronaut standing in the shade of the module should be completely black as there was only one light source. All you have to do is look around your room to debunk this one.
They tried to speed up the footage of the buggy to try and make it look like it was driving at Earth gravity, but what about the dust being kicked up? In accordance to a vacuum, it does not float around as it would do on Earth. It would look odd to say the least if you were driving on a dirt road without hanging dust trailing your car.
The one about the stars not showing up in the pictures should be debunked by anyone who has ever used a camera.
They also thought that the astronaut standing in the shade of the module should be completely black as there was only one light source. All you have to do is look around your room to debunk this one.
They tried to speed up the footage of the buggy to try and make it look like it was driving at Earth gravity, but what about the dust being kicked up? In accordance to a vacuum, it does not float around as it would do on Earth. It would look odd to say the least if you were driving on a dirt road without hanging dust trailing your car.
Kenny, I admit that in the past, I thought you were perhaps a spook spreading disinformation. And who knows, maybe you are, but I would think that they'd be a bit more professional, like Manuel Garcia. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that what I was doing was making an assumption, even if I never voiced it as I'm doing now. Even at the point where I most thought that you were such, however, I was never sure and I would never have stated it with sureness.
What I'm getting at is that you are assuming that I'm being dishonest. When it comes to the moon landings, I have heard the story that all of them were faked, but Jim Marrs, an author that you may know I deeply respect, seems to suggest in his book "Alien Agenda" that only some of them were. I have said that I haven't researched it beyond what he's said and I know that while he does investigate things fairly well, no one's perfect and I know that some internet critics produced some evidence that seemed to suggest that some of his claims weren't factual (the evidence they provided was technical so I couldn't be certain who was right, but I admitted it was possible Jim Marrs was in the wrong).
When it comes to 9/11, I think I now have a firm grasp on the important facts in one aspect atleast; the collapse of the WTC towers. I have now brought up points that no one has contradicted with anything and I believe it's because people are incapable of doing so.
In conclusion: I admit that perhaps some of my beliefs are misinformed, but your assumption that I'm being dishonest is false.
It's very refreshing to see your last sentence - I believe there's hope for you after all.
As to the Moon landings, none were faked and the people who claim that they were are conveniently avoiding the best evidence of all:
Each and every Moon shot was tracked by stations around the world which were operated by every modern country on the globe. In addition to that, the US was in a race with the USSR to get there - and Russia never ONCE made any claims of "hoax." You can be SURE they would have SCREAMED if there had been even the slightest bit of evidence to support it. But, unlike all the conspiracy nuts, their scientists were smart enough to understand that the photos, films, etc. were genuine. So they said nothing.
So tell me - how does any rational person get around at least the fact that they were tracked? They would have to sheer idiots to claim the WHOLE WORLD was involved in perpetrating a hoax!!
That issue, along with all the other major points of the conspiracy nuts, was dealt with quite effectively on a recent episode of mythbusters. The variations seen in shadows seen in pictures (for instance) was simply caused by the topography of the moon.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
As a geologist the best evidence of all is the geochemistry of the moonrocks. It is wholly different from anything that was imagined and has led to intrepretations and understandings that were unimagineable.
I make that last statement with care and deliberation. I was an undergraduate at the time of the first landing. Trust me, half the geologists on the planet were coming up with bizarre predictions of what would be found. Not one predicted what we actually found.
For me, that is the clincher.
You are correct of course.
I was making reference only to what is readily available to every ordinary lay person in the world. It requires no special understanding or training to know that the tracking was done - and announced on world-wide TV and radio as it was happening - and that the USSR never made any complaints.
Well, for me it's because I haven't paid this stupid thread any attention. But just now there wasn't anything interesting to read so I pulled up the last page of it just to see what was here.
Ho-hum. {Yawn}
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I think I am only correct for myself. The tracking data, the absence of whistle blowing by Russia, a dozen other things, are all individually and in combination, irrefutable. I can just relate most easily to the geology.
A spook? Does that mean some sort of undercover agent? If so then that is just absolute batshit crazy. Are you really THAT paranoid?
Jesus... put your tin hat on.
Just because you conceed one or two errors doesn't mean you are an honest person. You still accept the whole flawed picture. Yourself and Jim Marr want life to be like the X-Files and you won't let anyone tell you that it isn't.
You have a good grasp of the truther propaganda, but the events of 9/11 are a totaly different thing.
And your version of the towers collapsing has no merit until you can explain why the towers were bowing and how this wasn't due to fire.
You prove yourself dishonest with every sentance you write.