Landing on the Moon - It Never Happened.

[SpectrumFX]

10 hours ago, SNACR said:

Oddly, you'd think mankind would have nailed the mass production of colour printed photos, in newspapers, long before they took a car to the moon and drove it about.

There's a difference between being able to do something at all, and being able to do something economically for the mass market in a way that is profitable. 

How long was it from the first development of colour photography to the mass use of colour photographs in newspapers? 

 

[dugsbody]

On 05/01/2017 at 10:43 PM, londislagerhound said:

As I said right at the start, if someone believes that man did not land on the moon then nothing is going to convince them otherwise. It is a pointless exercise.

My only (and probably final) comment, is that there is not one single shred of evidence, and there never has been, that it didn't happen. Not one person "confessing", not one conflicting report, not one reason from any reputable scientist, ever, that the moon landings couldn't or didn't take place. Every book, every piece of video or film, every interview with astronauts and the NASA personnel ties up with the official account of events. To the dying day of 5 moonwalkers, and to the current day from the other 7, there is not one word or action to give any creedence to the suggestions of fakery. Nothing, ever, to suggest otherwise.

Nobody, ever, since 20th July 1969 has offered anything but poor science and ill-conceived speculation to suggest a cover-up and catalogue of lies. Those who believe it didn't happen have lapped up conspiracy theories like puppies lap up a bowl of milk.

On this thread we've read suggestions that the Russians and Chinese were involved in the cover-up too We've read the farcical idea that because men involved in a WWII boat crash kept their mouths shut when the official secrets act dictated, that's reason enough to believe that 50 test pilots and thousands of NASA staff and sub-contractors would lie through their teeth for the rest of their lives.

Men landed on the moon in 1969, and they did it again in 1970, 71 and 72. They did it because the US governement desperately needed to beat the Russians at something in space and because the funding and resources were provided. The way to get there was big rockets, some brilliant engineers and the will to suceed. Few who have researched the story of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo would argue otherwise, but all would agree it happened.

When trying to determine the likelihood of something, it is sensible to look at the evidence and decide on balance what is most likely.

When evidence that strongly suggests the moon landings are real is encountered, instead of absorbing the evidence, the conspiracy believers will simply spend time trying to find ways to discredit it with increasingly unbelievable theories.

And that is the case here. The evidence pointing to the moon landings being real is neat, simple, makes sense, and doesn't require much in the way of suspension of belief. On the other hand, the theories for faked moon landings are unbelievably contrived, outlandish and brittle and require a huge suspension of belief (Russia and China are in on it, is probably the most laughable).

So you are correct. Conspiracy theorists have decided long ago what the "truth" is and so you won't be convincing them otherwise.

[Frank Hovis]

I agree in this case, though I did previously think that the first moon landing was faked.

It is wrong IMO to dismiss "conspiracy theorists" in general.

The wars in Iraq and Syria have to me been two stunning examples of the official narrative being clearly false and there being therefore a need to look behind government pronouncements.

I'm not diverting the thread, merely noting that governments would love to bracket anybody advocating a single conspiracy theory as being a general conspiracy theorist advocating all of them and therefore a whacked out loon.

[dugsbody]

Agreed, we should remain sufficient skepticism. But how much is sufficient? I think that figure will vary wildly

[Mr Jib Fingers]

On 1/6/2017 at 10:56 PM, replicon1 said:

You should be skeptical, it's important nor to accept things at face value but you should apply your skepticism to those that make the claims that it was faked too. This video puts the case that faking the moon landings was itself not possible at the time:

 

That just seems totally lame to me. He reckons that the finest minds in the world backed by almost umlimited budget wouldn't have been able to figure out eg. slow motion a few years before TV companies that brought it in for sports coverage in the 70s or a method of filming at higher speeds. 

You would have thought whilst filming the astronauts playing golf and jumping around for ages they would have bothered to point the camera back at the earth from the moon, which was the shot that everyone on the planet wanted to see. But apparently they forgot that bit for some reason.

In fact from all their photos on the moon there doesn't seem to be any sign of the earth in any of them, nor a reflection of it off their visors. Actually that's not quite true, I once saw one photo that looked like a selfie from below of an astronaut with the earth above them and the rest of the moon completely out of shot. The earth looked around the same size as the moon looks from earth. Apart from that there are none as far as I'm aware. Seems like a very strange oversight to me. 

I'm not saying they didn't go to the moon or anything, I just find this omission utterly incomprehensible. 

[SpectrumFX]

4 minutes ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

That just seems totally lame to me. He reckons that the finest minds in the world backed by almost umlimited budget wouldn't have been able to figure out eg. slow motion a few years before TV companies that brought it in for sports coverage in the 70s or a method of filming at higher speeds. 

You would have thought whilst filming the astronauts playing golf and jumping around for ages they would have bothered to point the camera back at the earth from the moon, which was the shot that everyone on the planet wanted to see. But apparently they forgot that bit for some reason.

In fact from all their photos on the moon there doesn't seem to be any sign of the earth in any of them, nor a reflection of it off their visors. Actually that's not quite true, I once saw one photo that looked like a selfie from below of an astronaut with the earth above them and the rest of the moon completely out of shot. The earth looked around the same size as the moon looks from earth. Apart from that there are none as far as I'm aware. Seems like a very strange oversight to me. 

I'm not saying they didn't go to the moon or anything, I just find this omission utterly incomprehensible. 

Have you never seen the earthrise photo? 

It's one of the most famous pictures ever taken. It was taken from lunar orbit during the Apollo 8 mission.

 

[SNACR]

1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

When trying to determine the likelihood of something, it is sensible to look at the evidence and decide on balance what is most likely.

When evidence that strongly suggests the moon landings are real is encountered, instead of absorbing the evidence, the conspiracy believers will simply spend time trying to find ways to discredit it with increasingly unbelievable theories.

And that is the case here. The evidence pointing to the moon landings being real is neat, simple, makes sense, and doesn't require much in the way of suspension of belief. On the other hand, the theories for faked moon landings are unbelievably contrived, outlandish and brittle and require a huge suspension of belief (Russia and China are in on it, is probably the most laughable).

So you are correct. Conspiracy theorists have decided long ago what the "truth" is and so you won't be convincing them otherwise.

Well they could easily close the argument by going again - which they won't, as humanity simply doesn't have the capability to which is attested to by no other country going in the half a century since.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

3 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

Have you never seen the earthrise photo? 

It's one of the most famous pictures ever taken. It was taken from lunar orbit during the Apollo 8 mission.

 

Yeah that's my point, hundreds of amazing photos of the earth from lunar orbit and none at all from the moon. They suddenly forgot all about the earth when they got there.

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

Yeah that's my point, hundreds of amazing photos of the earth from lunar orbit and none at all from the moon. They suddenly forgot all about the earth when they got there.

How high in the sky was the Earth from the landing sites?

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, SNACR said:

Well they could easily close the argument by going again - which they won't, as humanity simply doesn't have the capability to which is attested to by no other country going in the half a century since.

That has been addressed several times in this thread already.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

How high in the sky was the Earth from the landing sites?

Good question. I imagine it was high up in the sky or it would be visible when they are jumping about for ages.

Of course they could have just pointed the video camera up in the sky at any point.

 

 

[SNACR]

1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

I agree in this case, though I did previously think that the first moon landing was faked.

It is wrong IMO to dismiss "conspiracy theorists" in general.

The wars in Iraq and Syria have to me been two stunning examples of the official narrative being clearly false and there being therefore a need to look behind government pronouncements.

I'm not diverting the thread, merely noting that governments would love to bracket anybody advocating a single conspiracy theory as being a general conspiracy theorist advocating all of them and therefore a whacked out loon.

Often the official line on something, like the Madeline McCann case, is in fact a conspiracy theory.

Saying Jimmy Savile was a nonce, was a looney David Icke conspiracy theory, until the BBC gave it the official seal of approval and it magically became a non-looney conspiracy theory overnight. In fact it was just a statement of truth, and had always been a statement of truth, regardless of the BBC's, or government's official line on it, which goes for anything.

 

[SNACR]

2 minutes ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

Good question. I imagine it was high up in the sky or it would be visible when they are jumping about for ages.

Of course they could have just pointed the video camera up in the sky at any point.

 

 

It's almost like there must have been something there, like a sound stage roof, they didn't want to film. Same applies to never panning through 360 degrees - say hi to the crew.

[SNACR]

7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That has been addressed several times in this thread already.

Yes, something about money, and it not being popular with the people.

Given in China they'll blithely flood or bulldoze any 'people' who stand in the way of constructing a dam I doubt they give a crap about public apathy to lunar travel.

 

[Lurkst]

2 hours ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

Yeah that's my point, hundreds of amazing photos of the earth from lunar orbit and none at all from the moon. They suddenly forgot all about the earth when they got there.

I found one after googling for a minute...

[the gardener]

35 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

I found one after googling for a minute...

The shadows look wrong in that photo.

[billybong]

22 minutes ago, the gardener said:

The shadows look wrong in that photo.

and the space suit looks fresh from the dry cleaners.

[stormymonday_2011]

5 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

I agree in this case, though I did previously think that the first moon landing was faked.

It is wrong IMO to dismiss "conspiracy theorists" in general.

The wars in Iraq and Syria have to me been two stunning examples of the official narrative being clearly false and there being therefore a need to look behind government pronouncements.

I'm not diverting the thread, merely noting that governments would love to bracket anybody advocating a single conspiracy theory as being a general conspiracy theorist advocating all of them and therefore a whacked out loon.

There is a touch of the 'arrogance of the present' about those who dismiss the moon landings

The argument runs along the similar lines to the ones deployed to say that the Mayans, Egyptians etc could not have possibly built huge pyramids with the primitive technology they possessed. The only difference is the explanation offered.  Given that the Great Pyramids at Giza are clearly not a fake then the argument offered is it must have been some other more technically advanced and possibly alien civilisation that built them.  In the case of the moon landings the theory is that it was all a fabrication and the fact that it has not been done since is a clear sign it was faked  It might be worth pointing that apart from in Las Vegas humanity has not been building many pyramids recently either . The reality is people simply do not like the idea that they themselves are not the end point of history or that the Iphoneless inhabitants of the past were as smart if not smarter than the smart phone generations of today.

That is not to dimsiss all suggestions of conspiracies out of hand as they clearly do exist and even the criminal justice system recognises that fact in its processes.

[The XYY Man]

3 hours ago, SNACR said:

It's almost like there must have been something there, like a sound stage roof, they didn't want to film. Same applies to never panning through 360 degrees - say hi to the crew.

Don't be daft SNACCY.

They'd have revealed the location of Glenn Miller's plane if they'd done that...

 

XYY

                                                                                                               

The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb

 

[Broken biscuit]

4 hours ago, SNACR said:

Well they could easily close the argument by going again - which they won't, as humanity simply doesn't have the capability to which is attested to by no other country going in the half a century since.

And what would that achieve? If someone is determined not to believe something the first time, repeating the exercise isn't likely to "prove" anything to a denier.

I appreciate you're probably just playing devils advocate to generate some interesting discussion, so perhaps in the interest of debate you'd like to provide a brief outline of what actually happened instead of the official narrative. We can then discuss from that point of view.

I'm hoping that we can all agree that a Saturn V rocket did actually place a payload into LEO (I never witnessed it live myself, but I'm prepared to believe it happened based on witness evidence of the events that took place), but everything else (including the exact contents of the payload) is up for debate.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

3 hours ago, Lurkst said:

I found one after googling for a minute...

Aha there we are, that's similar to the one I saw. A close up of one of the astronauts with a tiny earth in the background. If the earth was indeed visible, then there is no chance they wouldn't have pointed the camera at it at some point.

Also I'm sure the earth would appear larger on the moon than the moon looks from the earth? It looks absolutely tiny in that photo

[Broken biscuit]

15 minutes ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

Aha there we are, that's similar to the one I saw. A close up of one of the astronauts with a tiny earth in the background. If the earth was indeed visible, then there is no chance they wouldn't have pointed the camera at it at some point.

Also I'm sure the earth would appear larger on the moon than the moon looks from the earth? It looks absolutely tiny in that photo

Definite fake. I've just measured the astronaut and I reckon he's only about 8 inches tall (I had to extrapolate as I can't see his legs). For a close up he's far to small.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

1 minute ago, Broken biscuit said:

Definite fake. I've just measured the astronaut and I reckon he's only about 8 inches tall (I had to extrapolate as I can't see his legs). For a close up he's far to small.

You don't think the earth looks a bit small in that photo then?

Ok.

I don't understand the curvature of the landscape he's standing on in that photo either to be honest. The whole thing looks strange.

[XswampyX]

6 minutes ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

You don't think the earth looks a bit small in that photo then?

Ok.

I don't understand the curvature of the landscape he's standing on in that photo either to be honest. The whole thing looks strange.

No it's 4 x bigger than the moon.

The moon looks about the same size as your thumbnail does with your arm extended. It's teeny weeny from down here.

[Dorkins]

40 minutes ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

Also I'm sure the earth would appear larger on the moon than the moon looks from the earth? It looks absolutely tiny in that photo

You could just do the calculation`if you think the earth is the wrong size in that photo. You have the astronaut there for scale.