Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,714 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 307,936
Pageviews Today: 487,448Threads Today: 154Posts Today: 2,439
06:10 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Why do so many doubt the moon landing?

 
sign 11 (not signed in)
User ID: 1096419
Canada
11/14/2010 10:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

Ok, so you acknowledge that a bright spot of light appears in these 2 consecutive photos, with a similar relative intensity and a close, although not exact, position in the sky.
If we can logically rule out that it's a star, planet, or dust on the lens, then the question still remains: what is it?

Obviously something in the processing. From the LPI website where those links point to:

Because of all this processing, these catalog images should not be used for research purposes. They should only be used to select and identify images for use in a research project. Higher resolution products should be obtained for use in any scientific investigation(s).

[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

If you look at the images at the Apollo Gallery at apolloarchive.com, those bright spots aren't there:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] or [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] (Hi-Res)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] or [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] (Hi-Res)
 Quoting: Gazmik


[link to www.lpi.usra.edu] (low res)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] (Hi-Res)

If you look even more closely, only the brightest spot has been removed by the high res scan on 12250.
The other lights in the sky are still seen at the left edge of the frame.
Another interesting feature has materialized in your high res scan however.
If you look into the blackness of the background, the high res scan revealed what appear to be faint, but unmistakable parallel horizontal lines that look exactly like very thin taut wires. Another "scan" artifact?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1096419
Canada
11/14/2010 10:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
I challenge you to find any historical event to which no "anomalies" can be found in the photographic record (assuming there is one.)
______

That's an interesting question, and a good topic for another thread. The crash of the Hindenburg comes to mind; in spite of the different views on how the fire started, I don't remember seeing any anomalous photos connected to the event.
_______
Unfortunately one runs afoul of the conspiracy believer double standard. A photograph taken by a probe showing the major artifacts of one of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon, in the relative positions and sizes as documented, is considered no proof of anything. A blurry picture of a single white dot is considered incontrovertible evidence of a UFO...

 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 1158110


The challenge was to find a historical event to which no anomalies could be found in the photographic record that would seriously challenge the official account of the disaster, and the challenge is fulfilled. At least until you can actually produce some evidence to the contrary, and not just a long-winded speculative narrative on the nature of conspiracy.

Noone has ever made the claim that a blurry picture of a single white dot was "incontrovertible evidence of a UFO" or anything else. But when there are many white dots that are unexplained, and those little white dots are linked to corroborative eye witness accounts from astronauts who have seen similar lights from the lunar surface, (the apollo 11 "bravo tango" incident), the anomalous evidence starts to gain credibility.
sign 11 (still not signed in)
User ID: 1096419
Canada
11/14/2010 11:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"Bravo Tango"
google transcript of dialogue between an unnamed Apollo 11 astronaut and Houston control:

Astronaut 1: Ha! What is it?
Astronaut 2: We have some explanation for that?
--BEEP--
Houston: We have (not), don't worry, continue your program!
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: Oh boy it's a, it's, it, it is really something (similar to)
fantastic here, you, you could never imagine this!
--BEEP--
Houston: Roger, we know about that, could you go the other way, go back
the other way!
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: Well it's kind of (rigged) ha, pretty spectacular ......
god ... what is that there?
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: It's (hollow), what the hell is that?
Houston: Go Tango, Tango!
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: Ha! There's kind of light there now!
--BEEP--
Houston: Roger, we got it, we (watched it), lose communication,
Bravo Tango, Bravo Tango, select Jezebel, Jezebel!
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: ...... ya, ha! ...... but this is unbelievable!
Houston: (we call you up Bravo Tango, Bravo Tango)!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 1164696
United States
11/15/2010 12:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

Ok, so you acknowledge that a bright spot of light appears in these 2 consecutive photos, with a similar relative intensity and a close, although not exact, position in the sky.
If we can logically rule out that it's a star, planet, or dust on the lens, then the question still remains: what is it?

Obviously something in the processing. From the LPI website where those links point to:

Because of all this processing, these catalog images should not be used for research purposes. They should only be used to select and identify images for use in a research project. Higher resolution products should be obtained for use in any scientific investigation(s).

[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

If you look at the images at the Apollo Gallery at apolloarchive.com, those bright spots aren't there:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] or [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] (Hi-Res)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] or [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] (Hi-Res)


[link to www.lpi.usra.edu] (low res)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] (Hi-Res)

If you look even more closely, only the brightest spot has been removed by the high res scan on 12250.
The other lights in the sky are still seen at the left edge of the frame.
Another interesting feature has materialized in your high res scan however.
If you look into the blackness of the background, the high res scan revealed what appear to be faint, but unmistakable parallel horizontal lines that look exactly like very thin taut wires. Another "scan" artifact?
 Quoting: sign 11 (not signed in) 1096419


I noticed a dimmer spot in -50, which seemed in a similar position, but I did not compare it against the older scan to see if it was or was not in the same position. I also did not mention it to keep from confusing the first poster.

It is unimportant, in the sense that we have already shown the brighter objects are NOT stars (the original claim.)


On a closer examination, ONE of the three lighter dots prominent in the older scan may be appearing on the newer scan (it is hard to line them up accurately as the older scan is also rather distorted). The "dumbell" shape of the dot adds to the likely-hood of it being the same defect -- although the shape is NOT similar, the total shape is at the limit of what can survive the JPEG compression on that image.

A quick adjustment of the histogram reveals the sky was NOT blacked out in the Kip Teague scan. I can't rule out a level adjustment, however. In any case, there is no specific marking around the white dot, meaning it is unlikely Kip removed it -- more likely, the brighter dot was, indeed, a spec of dust introduced during the older scanning process, slid sideways in the second image, and knocked completely off in the third and others.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 1164696
United States
11/15/2010 12:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
The challenge was to find a historical event to which no anomalies could be found in the photographic record that would seriously challenge the official account of the disaster, and the challenge is fulfilled. At least until you can actually produce some evidence to the contrary, and not just a long-winded speculative narrative on the nature of conspiracy.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1096419


Consider it a long-winded explanation of why YOU will never see such an image. Regardless of how obvious it may be to someone else, if it doesn't meet your particular conspiracy, you will be able to dismiss it easily.

Yes, I did offer such a challenge, before realizing that it was impossible to fulfill. No hoax believer is capable of that level of self-examination, so the exercise is pointless.


Noone has ever made the claim that a blurry picture of a single white dot was "incontrovertible evidence of a UFO" or anything else. But when there are many white dots that are unexplained, and those little white dots are linked to corroborative eye witness accounts from astronauts who have seen similar lights from the lunar surface, (the apollo 11 "bravo tango" incident), the anomalous evidence starts to gain credibility.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1096419


The point remains that you consider those blurry dots good evidence, and yet other blurry dots are not. Can you explain why?
Gazmik

User ID: 487277
United States
11/17/2010 09:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
If you look into the blackness of the background, the high res scan revealed what appear to be faint, but unmistakable parallel horizontal lines that look exactly like very thin taut wires. Another "scan" artifact?
 Quoting: sign 11 (not signed in) 1096419

Remember, you are dealing with film. Didn't it occur to you that those are scratches in the emulsion?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1167673
Canada
11/17/2010 08:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
Moon thread rocks! chorus
dumbdedumbdumb
User ID: 869912
United States
08/03/2011 01:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"Bravo Tango"
google transcript of dialogue between an unnamed Apollo 11 astronaut and Houston control:

Astronaut 1: Ha! What is it?
Astronaut 2: We have some explanation for that?
--BEEP--
Houston: We have (not), don't worry, continue your program!
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: Oh boy it's a, it's, it, it is really something (similar to)
fantastic here, you, you could never imagine this!
--BEEP--
Houston: Roger, we know about that, could you go the other way, go back
the other way!
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: Well it's kind of (rigged) ha, pretty spectacular ......
god ... what is that there?
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: It's (hollow), what the hell is that?
Houston: Go Tango, Tango!
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: Ha! There's kind of light there now!
--BEEP--
Houston: Roger, we got it, we (watched it), lose communication,
Bravo Tango, Bravo Tango, select Jezebel, Jezebel!
--BEEP--
Astronaut 1: ...... ya, ha! ...... but this is unbelievable!
Houston: (we call you up Bravo Tango, Bravo Tango)!
 Quoting: sign 11 (still not signed in) 1096419



This is an excerpt from a fictional television show called Alternative 3, but that doesn't stop the mentally deficient from copying and pasting it all over the internet. You can watch the show on YouTube. Alternative 3. Fiction.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6060053
United States
11/26/2011 02:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
Once outside the atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic bubble, I think the solar and cosmic radiation would have killed the astronauts. Argument over the Van Allen Belts seems to me a diversion from focusing on how much radiation is actually in space. Although Van Allen's back-pedaling is strange itself.

One thing that is strange. According to Armstong's bio, he used to visit a neighbor who had an amateur observatory built over his garage to look at the stars through the neighbor's telescope. It could be argued that all the astronauts were men who looked "outward". And yet, not once on the official Apollo videos do you see an astronaut stop to look up and say "Wow". It is generally agreed that they would have had a tremendous view of the stars, since the Moon has no atmosphere to disperse light from even the faintest of stars.
Not very sciency, but that strikes me as against human nature in general, and against the nature of men who have looked "outward" for most of their lives.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6060053
United States
11/26/2011 02:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"Once outside the atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic bubble, I think the solar and cosmic radiation would have killed the astronauts."
Only included atmosphere in the above statement for completeness, since the Earth's magnetic bubble and the atmosphere together, are what protect us Earth bound beings from solar and cosmic radiation. I think we have certainly sent people into Low Earth orbit.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6060053
United States
11/26/2011 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"Unfortunately one runs afoul of the conspiracy believer double standard. A photograph taken by a probe showing the major artifacts of one of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon, in the relative positions and sizes as documented, is considered no proof of anything. A blurry picture of a single white dot is considered incontrovertible evidence of a UFO."

First, nice tying moon landing skeptics in with UFO believers. A common tactic that like so many, has grown oh so tired.

Second, I believe that it was the moon landing believers who crowed all over the internet that the LRO photos would be "incontrovertible proof". With no atmosphere to distort the images, I thought this might close the case. Surely NASA would send an awesome camera with beyond private sector imaging abilities. Not like they don't have the money.

BUT, what a let-down the actual photos were! Where was the awesome million dollar quality? 50 kms. That's 31 miles. I've seen amateur photos of mountains 25 miles away that had better detail. And that is with an atmosphere interfering with the process.

The sad fact is that it is the moon landing believers who time and again get caught out. So cast doubts of credibility or sanity on the skeptics. Try and associate us with the UFO/lizard crowd.
Won't stop you getting caught in your lies.

"There were no solar flares during the Apollo missions. The astronauts were extremely lucky."
Remember that one?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6060053
United States
11/26/2011 05:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"A conspiracy believer, on the other hand, is alert for any anomaly. He doesn't require that it support an alternate theory; he only requires that it disagrees with the mainstream view. If there was any possible way of twisting the small size of the background people into supporting the suggestion that the Hindenburg was "faked" (never mind what was faked, exactly -- they never do!) they'd find it."

Why not use a better historical event in your argument? Say, the Lusitania.

The ship sinking that got us into WW1. The Germans claimed she was transporting ammunition for the war and was therfore a legitimate target under international law in effect at that time. The US government and the US media (the same folks telling us Apollo happened) swore up and down that the Lusitania was NOT carrying enough ammo to justify her sinking.

So, in your view, anyone having a contrary view to the "official" story was/is a nutball, correct?

Uh-oh:
"A dive team from Cork Sub Aqua Club, diving under license, discovered 15,000 rounds of the .303 (7.7×56mmR) caliber rifle ammunition transported on the Lusitania in boxes in the bow section of the ship. The find was photographed but left in situ under the terms of the license.[131] In December 2008, Gregg Bemis's dive team estimated a further four million rounds of .303 ammunition were on the ship at the time of its sinking. Mr. Bemis announced plans to commission further dives in 2009 for a full-scale forensic examination of the wreck."

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

Even more interesting that the British government tried to DESTROY THE EVIDENCE.

"Dublin-based technical diver Des Quiqley, who dived on the wreck in the 1990s with Bemis' permission, has reported that the wreck is "like Swiss cheese" and the seabed around her "is littered with unexploded hedgehog mines". Royal Navy officials have claimed they had merely been "practising" on the wreck, but others have suggested that in fact the Navy was deliberately trying to destroy evidence. Professor William Kingston of Trinity College, Dublin has said, "There's no doubt at all about it that the Royal Navy and the British government have taken very considerable steps over the years to try to prevent whatever can be found out about the Lusitania"."

Now what is the definition of conspiracy again?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6060053
United States
11/26/2011 05:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"And here we come to the second aspect of the conspiracy believer. They would approach the subject with little but vague memories and their own opinions on how a lighter-than-air craft is constructed, piloted, managed. Many things would "look fake" because they have no idea what a ballonet is, or what the Akron was."

Ah, the old "technical expert" argument. You really are entertaining nomuse.

Let's take this part:
"They would approach the subject with little but vague memories and their own opinions on how a lighter-than-air craft is constructed, piloted, managed."

I don't know anyone who doubts NASA's version of what the Command Module and LEM are constructed of. Aluminum.
Problem there is a NASA scientist who is working on the Mars mission has stated that aluminum would cause the hazards to humans from radiation to be worse, not better, due to something called secondary radiation.

So, which "technical expert" should we believe???

You? Phil Plaitt? Jay Windley? Robert Braunig?

Thanks for the LOLs.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1149306
United States
11/27/2011 04:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
Once outside the atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic bubble, I think the solar and cosmic radiation would have killed the astronauts. Argument over the Van Allen Belts seems to me a diversion from focusing on how much radiation is actually in space. Although Van Allen's back-pedaling is strange itself.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6060053


How much solar and cosmic radiation? Without figures you've got nothing.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
11/27/2011 07:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"And here we come to the second aspect of the conspiracy believer. They would approach the subject with little but vague memories and their own opinions on how a lighter-than-air craft is constructed, piloted, managed. Many things would "look fake" because they have no idea what a ballonet is, or what the Akron was."

Ah, the old "technical expert" argument. You really are entertaining nomuse.

Let's take this part:
"They would approach the subject with little but vague memories and their own opinions on how a lighter-than-air craft is constructed, piloted, managed."

I don't know anyone who doubts NASA's version of what the Command Module and LEM are constructed of. Aluminum.
Problem there is a NASA scientist who is working on the Mars mission has stated that aluminum would cause the hazards to humans from radiation to be worse, not better, due to something called secondary radiation.

So, which "technical expert" should we believe???

You? Phil Plaitt? Jay Windley? Robert Braunig?

Thanks for the LOLs.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6060053


You misread.

I require that you educate YOURSELF. Not that you trust an expert.

You may have difficulty doing this, however, considering your evident lack of reading skills.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6208227
United States
11/28/2011 10:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"How much solar and cosmic radiation? Without figures you've got nothing."

You are absolutely correct! And by now, those figures should be well documented by a variety of sources.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6198083
Belgium
11/28/2011 10:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
Frogs on the moon:



@ 1'14''
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6208227
United States
11/28/2011 11:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"You misread.

I require that you educate YOURSELF. Not that you trust an expert.

You may have difficulty doing this, however, considering your evident lack of reading skills."

No, I understood what you were trying to do quite well. Just because I have never flown in a balloon doesn't mean I cannot grasp the principles underlying. In the same way a layman does not need to be an astrophysicist to understand Newton's Laws of Motion.

And, again, some of the problems some skeptics have with the moon landings are the differences between what those with the training, with the backgrounds, and with years and years of education told us was going to happen, not actually happening.

You can't try and put the blame on the layman's misunderstandings when he/she asks, "How come the astronauts never jump over 18 inches?", when it was NASA themselves who were saying that they would be able to jump several feet high, if not more, in the first place.

Actually you did try, didn't you?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6208227
United States
11/28/2011 11:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
Cruising the Internet for space radiation numbers and came across this:

"Due to this risk, space missions are planned so they do no coincide with solar flares or other intense solar activities so as to protect the astronauts and cosmonauts from the dangerous amounts of radiation that is emitted from the sun."

So what say you moon landing believers? Can solar flares be predicted in advance? By hours? Days? Weeks?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6208227
United States
11/29/2011 12:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
"Except for the Apollo missions to the Moon, NASA's manned spaceflight missions have taken place within the cocoon of the Earth's magnetosphere. Between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions, one of the largest solar proton events ever recorded occurred, and it produced radiation levels of sufficient energy for the astronauts outside of the Earth's magnetosphere to absorb lethal doses within 10 hours after the start of the event. It is indeed fortunate that the timing of this event did not coincide with one of the Apollo missions."

From here: [link to srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov]

Without actually saying it, seems to me they are trying to imply that no solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions.

What say you moon landing believers, did solar flares occur during each and every Apollo mission?
ToSeek

User ID: 23577327
United States
10/27/2012 06:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
If you truly want to prove something real then simply make it un-fakeable.

Bullshit. You guys only know how to move goalposts. You'll
never accept that we went to the Moon no matter how much
evidence is provided.
That's ok though, the rest of the world
knows we went and the Chinese will be there in about a decade.
 Quoting: DrPostman


Pot. Kettle. Black.

The rest of the world only knows what they are being told. They trust their government, mainstream news organizations, the educational system, the medical industry and their priest.

I don´t. And guess what? I am not alone by far and the number of people getting onto the internet for the first time is still growing with estimates as high as 75.000 new users a day.

If you don´t see more and more people starting to questiont Apollo you have been talking to the wrong people, because the more Apollo (or any theory) is discussed, the more people are going to want to know more by reading up on the subject themselves, and the more they read the more they will go over to what you would call the dark side.

I was a Apollo believer once too you know?

Soon. I predict within two years we will know without a doubt the full story behind Apollo.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1143505


Still waiting.
AllGunsBlazing

User ID: 26221473
United States
10/29/2012 12:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?


Can't fake that.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26464380
United States
11/03/2012 02:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
Thread: Why do so many doubt the moon landing? (Page 179)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8065810
Canada
03/12/2013 06:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
bump
byron999

User ID: 29535095
United States
03/13/2013 06:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
Hello, you who asked what is behind this doubt of the moon landing. Are there that many deniers out there?

Well, most people do not care one way or the other. Yet, rest assured there are just as many of us arising who want to go back to the Moon, preferably even further away. We just do not frequent the type of websites that promote conspiracy theories. We have a demanding study and work schedule.
In any case, I support your question. Asking questions is very important.
I submit here that there are personal reasons, pro or con going to the moon; or, personal reasons pro or con "did men actually go there?"
I ask as well the conspiracy theorists: why do you accuse NASA of lying? considering how many crackpots and liars are promoting conspiracy theories. Make a list of names, a list of their websites. What goes on there? Truth? No. It is all the fear mongering, all the "are we in danger" stories. These guys work on it eight hours a day, sometimes more. Look at the side panels, all the books about fears and monstrous conspiracies.
Look at the common denominator. The common denominator is FEAR. It makes money. Why don't you all make a list of these conspiracy theories; then look at it.
Then ask yourself: Does this list of conspiracies make any sense? Who is really lying?

The main point here is ignorance. Before there was a manned space program, in 1956, I was advocating manned space exploration. I was only seven years old; so most of the people around me ridiculed the idea; or, they questioned why would we want to go to the moon or other planets. When i got older, and the space program peaked around 1970, the opposition actually got worse. I figured that when i began promoting the idea, it really was not about me. It was not about my age. It was about people and their prejudice.
At that point began the life-long dispute between those who want to go to outer space and explore, much like the sailors of old going to sea in sailing ships to explore new lands -vs- those who claimed that the world was flat and a terrible fate would befall the sailors at the edge of the earth -- or now we hear the same people, or should i say the same type of people, bemoaning the moon trip fakes, or the Van Allen belt radiation dangers, or that stupid flag that looks like its waving in a breeze, whatever. You people who believe the moon landings were faked are just plain ignorant. The evidence means nothing to you. You just want to trash the whole idea of going to the moon.
Now I realize another factor, that of media pundits attributing the whole space program to the competition with Russia, the Cold War. Well, the government may well had had that as a motive. But, we in the space program were not motivated by that. We were motivated by Exploration and by Science.
The thousands of dedicated people who went to school to become the astronauts, the technicians, the scientists, the engineers, the quality inspectors, we all had pride in our work and would not be involved in a crooked scheme to fake out or put on a big smoke and mirrors show. Being a scientist, an engineer, a technician in most cases, requires personal integrity. We would not, in most instances, 95 percent at least, support a falsehood. To lie would be a transgression against the whole essence of Science. To lie would be to dishonor those who came before us.
We scientists are truth seekers. We check our work and face peer review. We face tests. We did not go to school to be gamblers, confidence men, or crooks.
Examining the evidence is easy because it is available on the net --but your powers of comprehension are too limited. You do not want to look at the reasonable explanations. Nor will you recognize the thousands of dedicated hard working people working at all the hundreds of companies, at the space centers, the astronauts themselves, and the tracking station people. Do you expect they are all keeping some kind of nefarious secret? If so you are just paranoid freaks. You are the same ones who believe all the other wacky conspiracy theories. The worn out old Illuminati junk, the cranks complaining about Rockefeller, CFR, and all that. Its tired by now. ---OK all you claiming the moon landings are fake: Yeah, go ahead now and resort to your foul-mouthed abusive speech to attack me. I have not used any expletives here. Now we can watch you go wild. Have fun.
Future readers of our history will see you in the footnotes: "Many conspiracy theorists arose in those years to attack the space exploration pioneers."
SC22
User ID: 28817449
United States
03/17/2013 05:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
I challenge you to find any historical event to which no "anomalies" can be found in the photographic record (assuming there is one.)


That's an interesting question, and a good topic for another thread. The crash of the Hindenburg comes to mind; in spite of the different views on how the fire started, I don't remember seeing any anomalous photos connected to the event.

 Quoting: sign11 (comp crashed argh) 1146532


Unfortunately one runs afoul of the conspiracy believer double standard. A photograph taken by a probe showing the major artifacts of one of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon, in the relative positions and sizes as documented, is considered no proof of anything. A blurry picture of a single white dot is considered incontrovertible evidence of a UFO.

If either of us were to look at pictures from the flight and disaster of the Hindenburg we would no doubt notice several things that looked slightly odd. People would have trees growing from their heads, tiny people would be next to big people, and so on and so forth. We'd see these things, but pass by them almost without noticing; since we are at least slightly familiar with how a camera sees the world, and we would accept it is far more likely a man is in the distance, than that a dozen midgets each under six inches tall were riding the Hindenburg that day.

A conspiracy believer, on the other hand, is alert for any anomaly. He doesn't require that it support an alternate theory; he only requires that it disagrees with the mainstream view. If there was any possible way of twisting the small size of the background people into supporting the suggestion that the Hindenburg was "faked" (never mind what was faked, exactly -- they never do!) they'd find it.

Perhaps the little people are evidence of a sloppy paste-up job as the photograph of the dirigible's launch was faked. And, indeed, the aircraft doesn't look believable. It really does look like a toy, once you look at it right. So obviously it never existed in the first place, and all the pictures of it are faked up with models and pasted up in the darkroom.

And here we come to the second aspect of the conspiracy believer. They would approach the subject with little but vague memories and their own opinions on how a lighter-than-air craft is constructed, piloted, managed. Many things would "look fake" because they have no idea what a ballonet is, or what the Akron was.

And when you add photographic "analysis" to the mix, you run against the generally poor skills in perspective and optics and photography. Yes...conspiracy theorists are out there every day calling a picture suspicious because shadows aren't parallel.



So it is a task. I DO know a little something about airships, and before I started theorizing about the Hindenburg I'd make sure to educated myself more. I also have lit professionally, and attended lectures on studio photography. So I would, indeed, notice that the envelope was crumpling in a suspicious way or the lighting seemed too bright on the ground -- but I'd recognize why these were happening, and accept these as more plausible explanations.

I wouldn't, unlike the typical hoax believer, require a crane to explain a smudged footprint.

And, unfortunately, hoax believers have no perspective on their own mental processes. They would be quite capable of accepting what appeared to be anomalies in photographs of the Hindenburg (because they have no emotional stake in believing it faked) but at the same time refuse to accept that there are more likely explanations to the "anomaly" they've found in the Apollo record.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 1158110


(An) anomaly is one thing, but the sheer volume of anomalies surrounding all the historical records and "evidence" of the moon landing is remarkable.
CHAPTER 1
It's as if all the anomalies and glitches decided to get together and have a convention simultaneously with each mission to the moon. It's when stars in the moon sky decided they weren't doing any photo ops! It's during a time when thin aluminum and thin flight suits could stop lethal doses of radiation! It was a time when shadows from one source of light said "screw it" and decided they would lie at different angles. It was the time when buggies decided they wouldn't leave tire imprints on the surface but astronaut boots decided they would. It's the time when large cargo took employment as contortionists, performing for us each and every mission. It's when rays of light picked and chose which objects to bend around and illuminate. It was durring a time when etched camera cross hairs decided to play hide and seek, hiding behind the objects in their corresponding photos. T'was a time when astronauts decided, that for themselves, "opaque" was an earth fad so they'd make transparent the fad for the moon. This was the time; the time when statistics were as useful as a dog turd in the grass and computers no smarter than a 10cent calculator could project a rocket to the moon. These are the days of NASA's lies. queue musical intro
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 35829559
United States
03/17/2013 05:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
I challenge you to find any historical event to which no "anomalies" can be found in the photographic record (assuming there is one.)


That's an interesting question, and a good topic for another thread. The crash of the Hindenburg comes to mind; in spite of the different views on how the fire started, I don't remember seeing any anomalous photos connected to the event.

 Quoting: sign11 (comp crashed argh) 1146532


Unfortunately one runs afoul of the conspiracy believer double standard. A photograph taken by a probe showing the major artifacts of one of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon, in the relative positions and sizes as documented, is considered no proof of anything. A blurry picture of a single white dot is considered incontrovertible evidence of a UFO.

If either of us were to look at pictures from the flight and disaster of the Hindenburg we would no doubt notice several things that looked slightly odd. People would have trees growing from their heads, tiny people would be next to big people, and so on and so forth. We'd see these things, but pass by them almost without noticing; since we are at least slightly familiar with how a camera sees the world, and we would accept it is far more likely a man is in the distance, than that a dozen midgets each under six inches tall were riding the Hindenburg that day.

A conspiracy believer, on the other hand, is alert for any anomaly. He doesn't require that it support an alternate theory; he only requires that it disagrees with the mainstream view. If there was any possible way of twisting the small size of the background people into supporting the suggestion that the Hindenburg was "faked" (never mind what was faked, exactly -- they never do!) they'd find it.

Perhaps the little people are evidence of a sloppy paste-up job as the photograph of the dirigible's launch was faked. And, indeed, the aircraft doesn't look believable. It really does look like a toy, once you look at it right. So obviously it never existed in the first place, and all the pictures of it are faked up with models and pasted up in the darkroom.

And here we come to the second aspect of the conspiracy believer. They would approach the subject with little but vague memories and their own opinions on how a lighter-than-air craft is constructed, piloted, managed. Many things would "look fake" because they have no idea what a ballonet is, or what the Akron was.

And when you add photographic "analysis" to the mix, you run against the generally poor skills in perspective and optics and photography. Yes...conspiracy theorists are out there every day calling a picture suspicious because shadows aren't parallel.



So it is a task. I DO know a little something about airships, and before I started theorizing about the Hindenburg I'd make sure to educated myself more. I also have lit professionally, and attended lectures on studio photography. So I would, indeed, notice that the envelope was crumpling in a suspicious way or the lighting seemed too bright on the ground -- but I'd recognize why these were happening, and accept these as more plausible explanations.

I wouldn't, unlike the typical hoax believer, require a crane to explain a smudged footprint.

And, unfortunately, hoax believers have no perspective on their own mental processes. They would be quite capable of accepting what appeared to be anomalies in photographs of the Hindenburg (because they have no emotional stake in believing it faked) but at the same time refuse to accept that there are more likely explanations to the "anomaly" they've found in the Apollo record.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 1158110


(An) anomaly is one thing, but the sheer volume of anomalies surrounding all the historical records and "evidence" of the moon landing is remarkable.
CHAPTER 1
It's as if all the anomalies and glitches decided to get together and have a convention simultaneously with each mission to the moon. It's when stars in the moon sky decided they weren't doing any photo ops! It's during a time when thin aluminum and thin flight suits could stop lethal doses of radiation! It was a time when shadows from one source of light said "screw it" and decided they would lie at different angles. It was the time when buggies decided they wouldn't leave tire imprints on the surface but astronaut boots decided they would. It's the time when large cargo took employment as contortionists, performing for us each and every mission. It's when rays of light picked and chose which objects to bend around and illuminate. It was durring a time when etched camera cross hairs decided to play hide and seek, hiding behind the objects in their corresponding photos. T'was a time when astronauts decided, that for themselves, "opaque" was an earth fad so they'd make transparent the fad for the moon. This was the time; the time when statistics were as useful as a dog turd in the grass and computers no smarter than a 10cent calculator could project a rocket to the moon. These are the days of NASA's lies. queue musical intro
 Quoting: SC22 28817449


Every single one of your supposed anomalies has been explained for you. YOU have ignored the explanations. YOU have decided to remain willfully ignorant. That is YOUR fault and not anyone elses.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
SC22
User ID: 28817449
United States
03/17/2013 06:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
No. You choose to perpetuate a lie and mislead your fellow man. That's your problem.
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 35829559
United States
03/17/2013 06:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
No. You choose to perpetuate a lie and mislead your fellow man. That's your problem.
 Quoting: SC22 28817449


Prove it. So far all you done is wave your hands. Show exactly WHY the explanations given for all of your supposed anomalies are wrong. I dare you.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/17/2013 10:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why do so many doubt the moon landing?
No. You choose to perpetuate a lie and mislead your fellow man. That's your problem.
 Quoting: SC22 28817449


You chose to support beliefs that could fall to the slightest experimentation.

Go outside with a pair of pencils. An honest person would see if you could produce non-parallel shadows from a single distant source (the sun) using nothing but terrain variation.

An honest person would determine by taking his own photograph if all shadows from that same distant source lie parallel in the picture frame, regardless of terrain.

You haven't done these experiments. Why? What are you protecting?





GLP