Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Ian Chesterton

Calling Conspiracy Theorists

Recommended Posts

Guest anorthosite

Hi,

There's an awful lot of conspiracy talk around here about all kinds of things, and I'll like to ask everyone who tends to doubt the official version of things to give me their opinion on a favourite subject of the conspiracy theorists - the moon landings.

I really, really want to know if you think they were faked, and if so, how and why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

There's an awful lot of conspiracy talk around here about all kinds of things, and I'll like to ask everyone who tends to doubt the official version of things to give me their opinion on a favourite subject of the conspiracy theorists - the moon landings.

I really, really want to know if you think they were faked, and if so, how and why.

I once saw an interesting documentary on one of the satellite channels about it.

My problem with the conspiracy theory - man has been to the moon several times in total. I consider it highly unlikely that it was hoaxed.

And I like conspiracy theories (or alternative narratives).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad didn’t believe they landed on the moon the very first day they went. Everyone said to him: Shuddup you silly old sod, of course they have. Well If he was still alive today I think he would be pleased knowing that so many now seem to agree with him. I personally am a little suspicious when Neil Armstrong said to his wife. “Do you remember our Vacation in Yosemite” BLEEP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems pretty unlikely that you could land such a large vehicle on something so small. What is it - 1m across - 2 perhaps. Certainly no more than 10 feet anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

There's an awful lot of conspiracy talk around here about all kinds of things, and I'll like to ask everyone who tends to doubt the official version of things to give me their opinion on a favourite subject of the conspiracy theorists - the moon landings.

I really, really want to know if you think they were faked, and if so, how and why.

Yeah baby!

Check out this classic thread from two years back, when I was going thorough my moon landing CT phase!

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...20two&st=15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best conspiracy I know is...

19 Muslims flew 2 planes into New York and brought 3 buildings down at freefall speed (Yes all 3).

Another plane flew into the Pentagon (The worlds most protected building) and left no wreckage as did a fourth in Shanksville.

A war was then started in Afghanistan and Iraq based on a pork pie, a war that was described before the events by a writing called 'the Project for a New American Century' PNAC.

30, 000 - 100, 000 children dead due to these events without any human being held accountable.

I could go on... in fact I will jut for the fun of it.

As a Taxpayer we in the U.K. and America we may be seen as funding this Genocide. I think we'll all agree that makes us guilty of funding this atrocity and therefore breaking:

The General Treaty for the Renuniation of War 1928 (Kellogg-Briad Act)

The United Nations Charter 1945

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

The Proxmire Act 1988 (US), The Rome Statute 1998, The International Criminal Court Act 2001

The United Nations Charter 1945

http://makewarshistory.org.uk/

:o:o:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you still a doubter regarding the rocks and the stars in the photos?

Hmmm good question. My doubts arise from the contrasting news reports of the landing sites, and whether the LEM made a blast crater or not. Also the whole Lunacorp thing; The absurdity of taking four cars to the moon; And how it's possible to photograph Beagle Two (size of a suitcase) on the surface of Mars, but not four cars and six LEMs on the moon. Seeing as there is so much CT stuff on the net why don't they just prove it with some snaps? Read my posts and the links in that thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
Hmmm good question. My doubts arise from the contrasting news reports of the landing sites, and whether the LEM made a blast crater or not. Also the whole Lunacorp thing; The absurdity of taking four cars to the moon; And how it's possible to photograph Beagle Two (size of a suitcase) on the surface of Mars, but not four cars and six LEMs on the moon. Seeing as there is so much CT stuff on the net why don't they just prove it with some snaps? Read my posts and the links in that thread.

There's only three cars on the moon, from Apollos 15, 16 & 17. They were very useful for geological exploration, much of the work done on the last 3 missions couldn't have been done without it.

There isn't a camera in orbit round the moon like there is on Mars, so no hi-res pics.

The LEM probably didn't make a blast crater, as the engine should have been cut off when the contact probes touched the ground (although that didn't always happen). I've certainly seen some scattering of the dust under the LEM. Its also a vacuum up there, which means the exhaust gases disperse quicker.

The stars in the photos are fairly obvious, just try taking a photo on earth during the day, or even at night in a big city and see if you can see stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's only three cars on the moon, from Apollos 15, 16 & 17. They were very useful for geological exploration, much of the work done on the last 3 missions couldn't have been done without it.

There isn't a camera in orbit round the moon like there is on Mars, so no hi-res pics.

The LEM probably didn't make a blast crater, as the engine should have been cut off when the contact probes touched the ground (although that didn't always happen). I've certainly seen some scattering of the dust under the LEM. Its also a vacuum up there, which means the exhaust gases disperse quicker.

The stars in the photos are fairly obvious, just try taking a photo on earth during the day, or even at night in a big city and see if you can see stars.

You've not read the thread have you?

Kindly and carefully read the thread and the articles I've linked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
You've not read the thread have you?

Kindly and carefully read the thread and the articles I've linked.

So you're saying:

Moon rocks are meteorites from the South Polar region?

A film camera could take photographs of the lunar surface and the stars without over or under exposing one or the other?

The videos don't work.

Where was the fourth car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're saying:

Moon rocks are meteorites from the South Polar region?

A film camera could take photographs of the lunar surface and the stars without over or under exposing one or the other?

The videos don't work.

Where was the fourth car?

Ok, three cars.

Yes to the rest.

Where is the telemetry? One of mankind's greatest achievements, and they just lost it?

Apollo 13. On the thirteenth hour of the thirteenth mission disaster struck! So staged and formulaic, of course it's believable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
Ok, three cars.

Yes to the rest.

Where is the telemetry? One of mankind's greatest achievements, and they just lost it?

Apollo 13. On the thirteenth hour of the thirteenth mission disaster struck! So staged and formulaic, of course it's believable!

It was the third day the disaster struck on Apollo 13.

I challenge you to take a photograph at night of someone, using flash photography, and capture both them and the stars perfectly.

If the rocks were meteorites, how do you account for the zap pits caused by radiation from the sun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was the third day the disaster struck on Apollo 13.

I challenge you to take a photograph at night of someone, using flash photography, and capture both them and the stars perfectly.

If the rocks were meteorites, how do you account for the zap pits caused by radiation from the sun?

The photos weren't taken with flash on the moon!!

Meteorites consisting of material from Mars have been found on Earth.

I said the thirteenth hour, not day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was the third day the disaster struck on Apollo 13.

I challenge you to take a photograph at night of someone, using flash photography, and capture both them and the stars perfectly.

If the rocks were meteorites, how do you account for the zap pits caused by radiation from the sun?

The photos weren't taken with flash on the moon!!

Meteorites consisting of material from Mars have been found on Earth.

I said the thirteenth hour, not day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe the US got to the moon. It just looks like a complete scam to me. It seems so obviously faked i cant even understand how they fooled people at the time.

Just like they could prove that a plane hit the pentagon by releasing the CCTV footage that was confiscated, they could easily photograph debris from the landing to prove they happened.

But the silence is deafening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
The photos weren't taken with flash on the moon!!

Meteorites consisting of material from Mars have been found on Earth.

I said the thirteenth hour, not day.

I never said there was flash used on the moon. However, using a flash at night is a good way to emulate the exposures the film in the cameras on the moon would have had to deal with to photograph both stars and the lunar surface.

Actually, here's a better one. Try and take a photo of the full moon and stars without over exposing the moon or under exposing the stars.

I know meteorites of martian rocks have been found on earth (SNC meteorites). However, are you saying that the moon rocks from Apollo were actually meteorites?

You said the thirteen hour, but you were wrong. The explosion occured on the third day of the mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
It just looks like a complete scam to me. It seems so obviously faked

What makes you say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes you say that?

1. It all seems very cheesey like a film, not like a real operation

2. The photos just dont look real. If they did go to the moon im still 100% convinced they lost the film and faked the photos afterwards. If you compare the pics of mars and other planet landing with the moon landings, they just look fake to me. Not sure about all the shadow crap, i just get an overwelming feeling they are fake, and always have.

3. The russians said it couldnt be done, and they were more advanced in this field at the time.

4. If it was possible then, why havnt we been back?

5. I dont trust the American government, they have faked too many things

6. If you read about deep sea exploration, and how hard it is, youll start to realise how absurd it is to suggest we can get to the moon with basic technology in the 1960s.. We cant even get to the bottom of the deepest ocean trenches on our own planet.

7. Look at a TV from the 60's. Its rubbish. All electrical stuff was. I dont beleive it would have lasted in space.

8. If you go to the moon, you would do work, not **** around playing golf as such crap. It would be very dangerous, and there would be a high probability of death. The last thing on your mind would be some photo stunts. I cant see Scott getting some clubs out for a cheesey picture oportunity at the south pole. His mind would be more focused on making sure he didnt die.

9. Why the hell would they take a car to the moon,? The very idea of it seems too incredulous.

10. Youve seen how hard it is launching a craft from the earth. It takes hundreds of people thousands of hours to do it. Yet we are expected to believe that a tin foil space craft managed to land the right way up and then take off again with the control of a few atsronauts in suits? If you study the way the unmanned craft land on mars, its very violent, and they use parachutes and inflatable protection for the crash landing. Often the craft are destroyed on landing, or land on rocks and are disabled. Yet the americans managed to land a craft the right way up on a perfectly flat area with no fuss at ll. That seems to defy what i know about other landings.

I dont know about all the scientific stuff like the van allen belt etc, its hard to know what to beleive. But from my own evidence using common sense, it seems unlikely that it was real to me.

My personal view is they blasted off, did a couple of circuits of the earth and then came home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
1. It all seems very cheesey like a film, not like a real operation

2. The photos just dont look real. If they did go to the moon im still 100% convinced they lost the film and faked the photos afterwards. If you compare the pics of mars and other planet landing with the moon landings, they just look fake to me. Not sure about all the shadow crap, i just get an overwelming feeling they are fake, and always have.

3. The russians said it couldnt be done, and they were more advanced in this field at the time.

4. If it was possible then, why havnt we been back?

5. I dont trust the American government, they have faked too many things

6. If you read about deep sea exploration, and how hard it is, youll start to realise how absurd it is to suggest we can get to the moon with basic technology in the 1960s.. We cant even get to the bottom of the deepest ocean trenches on our own planet.

7. Look at a TV from the 60's. Its rubbish. All electrical stuff was. I dont beleive it would have lasted in space.

8. If you go to the moon, you would do work, not **** around playing golf as such crap. It would be very dangerous, and there would be a high probability of death. The last thing on your mind would be some photo stunts. I cant see Scott getting some clubs out for a cheesey picture oportunity at the south pole. His mind would be more focused on making sure he didnt die.

9. Why the hell would they take a car to the moon,? The very idea of it seems too incredulous.

10. Youve seen how hard it is launching a craft from the earth. It takes hundreds of people thousands of hours to do it. Yet we are expected to believe that a tin foil space craft managed to land the right way up and then take off again with the control of a few atsronauts in suits? If you study the way the unmanned craft land on mars, its very violent, and they use parachutes and inflatable protection for the crash landing. Often the craft are destroyed on landing, or land on rocks and are disabled. Yet the americans managed to land a craft the right way up on a perfectly flat area with no fuss at ll. That seems to defy what i know about other landings.

I dont know about all the scientific stuff like the van allen belt etc, its hard to know what to beleive. But from my own evidence using common sense, it seems unlikely that it was real to me.

1. In what way does it seem "cheesy"?

2. Given that the pics were taken on medium format film cameras, then of course they look different. How do they not look "real"?

3. When did the Russians say it couldn't be done? They came very close to doing it, but they had problems with their N1 rocket.

4. No political will to do so.

5. Agreed, but that's hardly enough to refute the evidence.

6. The moon is not the bottom of the ocean. The problem in the ocean is pressure, which isn't such a big deal in space. Just beacuse one thing is difficult, doesn't mean something totally different is as well.

7. A TV from the 60s or 70s didn't cost a million bucks a piece. A lot more money was spent on Apollo technology than consumer goods!

8. All Apollo astronauts were highly trained in field geology, and spent up to three days doing survey work on the moon per mission. The last mission even sent up a professional geologist. The golf was done for laugh at the end of one mission without the prior approval of mission control. There was some amazing science done up there.

9. The car was small, lightweight and designed for geological traverses. With it they were able to move between survey sites quickly so they could field map a larger area - all partof that work you mentioned in point 8.

10. Viking landed on Mars the same way. Harriers land in a similar manner. In a vacuum its even easier to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. It all seems very cheesey like a film, not like a real operation

2. The photos just dont look real. If they did go to the moon im still 100% convinced they lost the film and faked the photos afterwards. If you compare the pics of mars and other planet landing with the moon landings, they just look fake to me. Not sure about all the shadow crap, i just get an overwelming feeling they are fake, and always have.

3. The russians said it couldnt be done, and they were more advanced in this field at the time.

4. If it was possible then, why havnt we been back?

5. I dont trust the American government, they have faked too many things

6. If you read about deep sea exploration, and how hard it is, youll start to realise how absurd it is to suggest we can get to the moon with basic technology in the 1960s.. We cant even get to the bottom of the deepest ocean trenches on our own planet.

7. Look at a TV from the 60's. Its rubbish. All electrical stuff was. I dont beleive it would have lasted in space.

8. If you go to the moon, you would do work, not **** around playing golf as such crap. It would be very dangerous, and there would be a high probability of death. The last thing on your mind would be some photo stunts. I cant see Scott getting some clubs out for a cheesey picture oportunity at the south pole. His mind would be more focused on making sure he didnt die.

9. Why the hell would they take a car to the moon,? The very idea of it seems too incredulous.

10. Youve seen how hard it is launching a craft from the earth. It takes hundreds of people thousands of hours to do it. Yet we are expected to believe that a tin foil space craft managed to land the right way up and then take off again with the control of a few atsronauts in suits? If you study the way the unmanned craft land on mars, its very violent, and they use parachutes and inflatable protection for the crash landing. Often the craft are destroyed on landing, or land on rocks and are disabled. Yet the americans managed to land a craft the right way up on a perfectly flat area with no fuss at ll. That seems to defy what i know about other landings.

I dont know about all the scientific stuff like the van allen belt etc, its hard to know what to beleive. But from my own evidence using common sense, it seems unlikely that it was real to me.

My personal view is they blasted off, did a couple of circuits of the earth and then came home.

How could they do a couple of circuits of the earth with the whole world watching and then claim to have gone to the moon?

Mars is a lot further away and has higher gravity than the moon. Also the moon has no atmosphere to speak of.

If the septics hadn't gone then the soviets would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

Plus there's the moon rocks they brought back.

The most you can argue is the film is fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said there was flash used on the moon. However, using a flash at night is a good way to emulate the exposures the film in the cameras on the moon would have had to deal with to photograph both stars and the lunar surface.

Actually, here's a better one. Try and take a photo of the full moon and stars without over exposing the moon or under exposing the stars.

I know meteorites of martian rocks have been found on earth (SNC meteorites). However, are you saying that the moon rocks from Apollo were actually meteorites?

You said the thirteen hour, but you were wrong. The explosion occured on the third day of the mission.

Listen, I used to work in a photographic laboratory of a museum, so I know a bit about exposure.

Try and take a photo of the full moon and stars without over exposing the moon or under exposing the stars.

Very easy. Slow film, tripod, stop down, long exposure. There is just such a photo in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
Listen, I used to work in a photographic laboratory of a museum, so I know a bit about exposure.

Very easy. Slow film, tripod, stop down, long exposure. There is just such a photo in the thread.

I'm an experienced photographer who uses the same type of cameras the astronauts used, Hasselblads.

The astronauts didn't use tripods, nor did they use long exposures. Hence, by your own statement, you won't get stars in the picture.

There's still the rocks question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The astronauts didn't use tripods

No they took golf clubs instead.

I just don't believe it. The success rate was just too high. And taking cars, just absurd. At one sixth gravity the thing would be uncontrollable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 292 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.