The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did we land on the moon?  (Read 202786 times)

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #200 on: 11/08/2008 11:34:06 »
Quote
Agreed, is there a moderator around who would wish to lock this topic?
But it would only spring up again with another name. Just don't get involved if you find loony ideas offensive.
 :-\
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #201 on: 11/08/2008 19:59:03 »
Wow!
Now nine pages of wasted space.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #202 on: 11/08/2008 20:52:36 »
Virtual space, though!
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #203 on: 13/08/2008 11:10:05 »
Quote
Agreed, is there a moderator around who would wish to lock this topic?
But it would only spring up again with another name. Just don't get involved if you find loony ideas offensive.
 :-\

I don't find them offensive in the slightest. To be honest, I think they're rather amusing. But this one is just going round in circles.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #204 on: 13/08/2008 17:49:24 »
I think that the international governments are making you say that so we will stop picking holes in the conspiracy theories. Or is it the other way round?
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #205 on: 14/08/2008 00:34:00 »
Quote
Agreed, is there a moderator around who would wish to lock this topic?
But it would only spring up again with another name. Just don't get involved if you find loony ideas offensive.
 :-\
Being a member of TNS and finding loony ideas offensive are surely at odds with eachother. Also, its not the idea i find offensive, i just wonder why "stuff" like this is in new theories when there is nothing new and hardly a theory.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #206 on: 14/08/2008 19:28:06 »
I keep sugesting we have and "Absolute rubbish" section.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #207 on: 14/08/2008 19:30:33 »
I keep sugesting we have and "Absolute rubbish" section.

I'd have to move in there  :(
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #208 on: 14/08/2008 20:23:25 »
I keep sugesting we have and "Absolute rubbish" section.

I think "people" would suggest that that is what "new theories" already is. However i don't think it's made clear, and you are correct BC, we do need a "Absolute russish" section. The title or having your posts moved there may just be enough to discourage "them".
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #209 on: 15/08/2008 17:41:45 »
"Russish" reads like a Freudian Slip. Clearly they were involved in the conspiracy.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #210 on: 16/08/2008 14:25:40 »
"Russish" reads like a Freudian Slip. Clearly they were involved in the conspiracy.

Yes, there is a spell checker conspiracy!
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #211 on: 17/08/2008 00:33:07 »
I can spell "checker" perfectly well, thank you.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #212 on: 17/08/2008 13:51:20 »
I can spell "checker" perfectly well, thank you.

But I was trying to spell chequer!
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #213 on: 17/08/2008 21:41:47 »
Were you board?
Or did you want to get things square?
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #214 on: 18/08/2008 15:43:55 »
That really is at right angles to what I was thinking!
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #215 on: 06/09/2008 21:02:33 »
Look on pages three and four of the comment section of this video.

Three different pro-Apollo people have given three different explanations for the swinging jacket corner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wrong! The jacket is tied at the back. When his body goes down, so does the back of the jacket. Which is attached to the front corner of the jacket. Simple."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first two are from very well-known pro-Apollo people.

This is who HeadLikeARock is.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1#33457
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=9663&view=findpost&p=98465

This is who SpreadingtheMuse is.
http://es.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse
 
The third is an unknown.

The person who made the video (svector) has been ignoring requests that he comment on the issue for more than three months now.

I still maintain that gravity is making the corner of the jacket go back down.

This is real zero-G.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

SpreadingtheMuse has said some contradictory things.  What do you pro-Apollo people have to say about this?  Are all the explanation they give right?  Is only one of them right?  If so, which one is right?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #216 on: 07/09/2008 09:52:03 »
3 perfectly plausible explanations from people who may well know more about it than you do yet you still say "I still maintain that gravity is making the corner of the jacket go back down."

Since you seem quite prepared to consistently ignore the evidence, perhaps you should move the discussion to a theology website rather than this scientific one.
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #217 on: 07/09/2008 13:09:52 »
....I've come to the conclusion that the Moon itself just does not exist. And that it's all a big conspiracy and is in fact a big balloon or even a back lit poster...or ....even more conspiratorial...there must be something in the water that the authorities have put there so that we all hallucinate the moon.

The premise ?...so that people can claim kudos for saying they have been there !!....yes..yes...this is all true.

It's the same with Everest.. I truly do not believe that anyone has actually climbed it...in fact..I don't believe it is even real..I think it's a cardboard cut out cleverly photographed to appear there......I'd even go to say that all mountains don't exist.

Nor, does the Grand Canyon ...you know what it really is ?...it's a the groove in a tread of a Nike sports shoe photographed very close and touched up in Photoshop ?

Rain does not exist either...it's a conspiracy !....people around the world are fooled by a global conspiracy to hose individuals to make it appear that it's raining !!......

It's the same with oceans !!...Big swimming pools, wave machines and clever use of mirrors !!


The list is endless !!
« Last Edit: 07/09/2008 13:11:28 by neilep »
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #218 on: 07/09/2008 14:56:01 »
Quote
3 perfectly plausible explanations from people who may well know more about it than you do yet you still say "I still maintain that gravity is making the corner of the jacket go back down."

Since you seem quite prepared to consistently ignore the evidence, perhaps you should move the discussion to a theology website rather than this scientific one.
You're missing (or choosing not to see) the point.  They contradicted each other because they weren't organized. Now they are saying that all three are correct as they are just different ways of describing the same thing which is ridiculous. 

If you read the comment section, you'll see that spreadingtheMuse has said that all three are correct. Do you agree with him?

In the comment section he said he was a physicist.
http://es.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse

Please don't avoid this question.  Do you agree with spreadingtheMuse?

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #219 on: 07/09/2008 16:05:48 »
All three explanations might be at least part of the reason. It's not clear to me that they mean the same thing but so what?
Unless you can prove that these (and all other non-conspiracy theories) are all wrong then you really haven't added anything.
3 people put forward 3 ideas that they think might be an explanation. One or more of them might be right.
You seem to think that, because the answeres are not identical it means they are all wrong. That's nonsense.

Meanwhile you post stuff like "They contradicted each other because they weren't organized."
Well, shouldn't you make up your mind?
Either they are so organised that they have kept pretty much everyone convinced for decades or they are not organised.
You can't have it both ways.
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #220 on: 09/09/2008 16:15:50 »
Quote
All three explanations might be at least part of the reason. It's not clear to me that they mean the same thing but so what?
Unless you can prove that these (and all other non-conspiracy theories) are all wrong then you really haven't added anything.
3 people put forward 3 ideas that they think might be an explanation. One or more of them might be right.
You seem to think that, because the answeres are not identical it means they are all wrong. That's nonsense.

Meanwhile you post stuff like "They contradicted each other because they weren't organized."
Well, shouldn't you make up your mind?
Either they are so organised that they have kept pretty much everyone convinced for decades or they are not organised.
You can't have it both ways.
I didn't want to come out and bluntly say it but if that's what I have to do, I will.  I think those people are government agents who know the moon missions were faked.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

One of them is a regular poster at the Clavius forum.

Jay Windley and some of those other regular posters at Clavius got caught in a big lie which is explained here.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

Jay Windley knows Apollo was a hoax and so do the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum.

This is who Jay Windley is.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

Two of those posters who gave explanations for the swinging jacket corner are well-known.  Now they are in a pickle because they can't say the others were wrong and they can't explain why they can all be right either.  Look at pages 3 and 4 of the comment section of the YouTube video to see the inconsistancy in spreadingtheMuse's positions; he has contradicted himself.  Also, the guy who made the video (svector) has been ignoring requests that he comment on the swinging jacket corner for three months now.  Svector is also a regular pro-Apollo poster at the Clavius forum.


I'm having a debate with the guy from Clavius right now over at Loose Change and he's really having a hard time because he won't say the other two are wrong.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/18/

It's pretty clear that spreadingtheMuse and HeadLikeARock are NASA shills who know Apollo was faked.

The are guilty of either deceit, or defective thinking; they don't seem like stupid people so I think it's deceit.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #221 on: 09/09/2008 19:17:18 »
Wouldn't it be easier to just get NASA to beat cosmored over the head with some moonrocks until he believes in them. It's clear that nothin g else is going to shake his conviction.
Presumably now I'm going to get labeled as a NASA "shill" as will anyone else who disagrees with cosmored's fanatical determination to believe he is being lied to.

I still wonder how they got the Russians in on this. Without their confirmation of the origin of the radio messages from the moon, there would be some sort of value to this "debate". With the Russians having agreed that the Yanks got there, there's no way it was faked.
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #222 on: 10/09/2008 15:09:44 »
Quote
I still wonder how they got the Russians in on this. Without their confirmation of the origin of the radio messages from the moon, there would be some sort of value to this "debate". With the Russians having agreed that the Yanks got there, there's no way it was faked.
Watch these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker++cold+war&search_type=&aq=f

You should read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war.  It's in a book of his called "Deterring Democracy"

He talks about how both the US and the Soviets exagerated about the confrontation they were having in order to scare their respective populations into going along with their policies.  According to Chomsky they were cooperating much more than we knew.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #223 on: 10/09/2008 19:17:16 »
Well, if the Russians were in on it and the Americans too, what about the Chinese?
No, come to think of it  it's easier to say "OK, you are right; everybody on the plannet has been lying to you all along."
The retroreflectors on the moon were put there by an act of God. The Russians only pretended to invade other countries- they were not really involved in a war. The moonrocks were made in a pottery kiln in a secondary shcool in Bognor Regis.
See, it all makes sense now.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #224 on: 11/09/2008 14:29:59 »
If it was a hoax, a hoax which the Americans and Russians were both in on, what was the point of the hoax?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #224 on: 11/09/2008 14:29:59 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length