Moon Landings Prog Tonight

No way did they get to the moon. The inconsistencies would get you off anything if it were tried in a court of law.

Just cause NASA say they did it, doesn't mean you should self-lobotomise and throw the evidence out the door.

Now some conspiracy theories are obviously twaddle, as there is no evidence in large amounts and much paranoia. But this one convinced me.

But hey, most westerners think milk is essential for health!

The one thing this programme does not do is show ALL the evidence.

Read this

&

Look at this

As Dr Braeunig points out, only the "anti-hoax" websites have links to those of the conspiracy theorists, not vice-versa. Who has the most to "hide"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe90:
No way did they get to the moon.

---

Joe,

You had to be there. It was no conspiracy. I feel so sorry for those who risked their lives on the moon landings having to listen to this stuff. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that it is possible for humans to do somthing so amazing?

The suggestion that all tracking stations worldwide, including Soviet ones, were all in on a conspiracy is ludicrous.

I suggest you do this..

Watch some footage from the moon landings.

Watch some Sci-Fi TV/Films from the same era

Try and see what they really would have produced if the wanted to falsify a landing.
It certainly wouldn't have looked like it did!

quote:

---

But hey, most westerners think milk is essential for health!

---

This isn't a conspiracy - it's marketing. But you're right - milk is a big con...

Regards

Stephen

If it's a repeat of one that was on a while back it's the biggest load of shite ever shown on television. All of the so-called "inconsistencies" are easily refuted by anybody with the slightest knowledge of physics and/or optics.

Who are the proponents of these hoax theories? - a bunch of quacks with no scientific reputation whatsoever. They are nobodies while the people involved in getting to the moon were some of the greatest scientific and technical minds the world has ever seen.

This was the greatest scientific achievement of the twentieth century and to see a bunch of ignorant charlatans and wankers trying to cheapen it makes my fucking blood boil. Check out this site. It's the best I've come across on this topic and easily debunks all this nonsense.

Moon landings

End of rant and sorry for the language but it really pisses me of.

Blame the media. They won't stop the facts getting in the way of a good story. Shame on them for producing such garbage, but bigger shame on us for watching it.

Cheers

Harry

Tom

The sad reality of life is that the world is full of under achievers who have nothing better to do than denounce those who actually achieved something.

Ignore them, they are insignificant plebs.

Regards

Mick

Somebody's obviously playing back clips of the film 'Capricorn One'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
Somebody's obviously playing back clips of the film 'Capricorn One'.

---

You mean we never went to Mars?



Stephen

OK, strike that. Maybe it was the moon-buggy scene in 'Diamonds are Forever'..

What really worries me though Mick is that so many people seem prepared to believe it all. It makes me despair.

Have you seen the most popular newspapers Tom? The Sun, The Mail, The Star. Tits, Big Brother, Posh & Becks as front page news. I've given up expecting the great british public to make intelligent choices. Let them watch it. Let them believe it. We are fast becoming the dumbest society in the world.
I wantto believe the moon landings happened for real & I don't need proof & I don't need to defend my opinion either. I wouldn't care if anyone disagrees.

Today's Times review says it will be debunking the conspiracy theory.

Bob

quote:

---

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
Today's Times review says it will be debunking the conspiracy theory.
Bob

---

Ahh....yes...JN did say that at the start didn't he.
Well...I'm sure it will be very informative and worthwhile.
(Tom, that was your fault!! )

Still it's good to have a rant now and again.


Channel 5 showed the infamous Fox programme (I won't call it a documentary) a couple of years ago and that was just a disgrace. I thought it was a repeat of that.

Weren't the moonshots just a pre-cursor to Big Brother?

Three men in cramped conditions asked to do inane tasks like

• attempting to eat and drink while weightless
  
• jumping up and down slowly in a space suit on the 'moon'
  
• hitting a golf ball in a space suit
  
• driving a converted golf buggy (is there a common theme here?)
  

whilst being filmed 24/7.

By series 13 they had got bored with the usual format so threw in a major technical failure as well to liven things up...

You know, if major media also did frequent hour-long documentaries on intelligent design, even that theory would get more credit than it deserves.

Oh hell, I've probably stepped in it now.

Judd

From a debunking site (www.braeunig.us):

quote:

---

None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions.

---

I suppose the death of three astronauts, during training, in the Apollo 1 capsule fire wasn't caused by a major technical problem...

As for the conspiracy theorists, I thought everyone knew the truth by now: the Saturn IV rocket never left the ground but a reverse-engineered flying saucer was used to tow the Apollo modules to the moon and back. Elvis was at the controls.

Hey guys .

the world is flat not round.

You can make gold out of any other material.

Alchemists have proven this many times.

Man cannot build a machine that flies.

You cant sail round the world, because it is flat.

I believe that we went successfully to the moon.

Trouble is we still dont have the technology to do anything with that ability to go and come back in one piece.

We have not really gone back or settled the moon or used it as a source of minerals etc.

When we crossed the atlantic we were able to colonise the country.
We have not managed this with space exploration yet.

The space station will enable us to sit in space and build a vehicle that may be able to go to the moon and do something constructive when we get there.

I still feel we need a beter propulsion system than setting fire to fuel.

I enjoyed the program and feel that the doubters were unconvincing in their argument.

regards David

My heart sank when it started, but it got better and better. The man who's devoted himself to debunking the debunkers deserves a medal.

I particularly liked the part about the original conspiracy theorist "who now keeps a low profile living on a cat sanctuary in Nevada." And, er, appearing on national television.

Channel 5 is getting better and better.

Tim

I'm quite a rational person IMO and I still think that there are too many holes in the whole moon landing thing for it to hold up.

If you were in court being tried for a crime, if you had 50% evidence to say you did it, and 50% evidence to say you didn't, you'd get off.

I'm sure some of the evidence against is a bit fluffy, but then there's so many obvious stuff ups, like the flag blowing in the 'breeze' and the different light sources (shadows going in different directions) that it really does make me laugh.

I think the Star Trek budget is a little smaller than the Federal Government's. I don't buy that argument.

Beyond REASONABLE doubt.

Hell, most people think JFK was assassinated by LHO.

Anyone who's fired a rifle knows that he got shot from different directions.

Surely you'd need extensive experience of shooting people in the head to 'know' that?

It's quite clear to me that JFK didn't get shot from different directions, and there is absolutely no evidence that he was. Just like there is absolutely no evidence that the moon landings were faked.

Paul

SPACE: 1969

quote:

---

there's so many obvious stuff ups, like the flag blowing in the 'breeze' and the different light sources (shadows going in different directions) that it really does make me laugh.

---

Joe90,

If these two points are what persuade you, you obviously weren't paying attention in your science classes, in which both of these points were likely discussed.

The flag, as every child of the era ought to know, was held up by wires. Why? Because the NASA engineers really DID realize that there was no wind on the moon, and so, cleverly, planned to put wires in the flag in advance, to keep it from hanging limply.

The different angled shadows, as every child of the era ought to know, is a common phenomenon caused by the fact that parallel lines sometimes don't appear parallel on film. Why? Because a two dimensional medium can't express every spatial detail of a three dimensional world.

You were stoned in elementary science classes, maybe?



It's a fake!!

Isn't there supposed to be a Japanese launched lunar exploration device in the offing.

This will apparently orbit the moon and take detailed pictures that WILL SHOW the debris of the Apollo missions?

Any knowledge?

Ok.
Convinced about the photos. Fair enough.

Of course th flag was held up by wires! I'm talking about the fact that it FLUTTERED.
Was that done by wires as well???

Paul, you have got to be fecking blind mate!!!!!!!!!

Watch the tape. His head moved backwards. Therefore he had to have been shot from in front. Action. reaction.

Lee Harvey Oswald was behind him the whole time (so they say). Therefore every shot would have made him fall FORWARDS.

Go outside and push something over. Watch what happens. It moves away from you. Not towards you.

Sheesh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe90:
I'm quite a rational person IMO and I still think that there are too many holes in the whole moon landing thing for it to hold up.

If you were in court being tried for a crime, if you had 50% evidence to say you did it, and 50% evidence to say you didn't, you'd get off.

I'm sure some of the evidence against is a bit fluffy, but then there's so many obvious stuff ups, like the flag blowing in the 'breeze' and the different light sources (shadows going in different directions) that it really does make me laugh.

I think the Star Trek budget is a _little_ smaller than the Federal Government's. I don't buy that argument.

Beyond REASONABLE doubt.

---

I can't believe anybody still thinks this. Did you watch the programme? Have you visited this site? Moonhoax

If not I'd urge you to do so before trying to defend the indefensible as there is absolutely no evidence of fakery. If you have, and still believe it's a hoax, then I doubt if there's any point in discussing further.

Incidentally the points you mention here are extremely easy to explain:

The flag appears to flutter because there's no air to dampen its movement.
The "apparent" multiple light sources and shadows going in different directions are caused by light being reflected all over the place, and by the lunar surface being uneven.

It's all dead simple stuff yet somehow these wasters have managed to make money by tapping into public ignorance and gullibility. If I didn't feel so strongly about it I'd be pissing myself laughing.