Did we land on the moon?

  • 436 Replies
  • 204199 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #400 on: 05/02/2010 12:46:56 »
I don't even think the moon is real. I think it's a big balloon hoax to make us think we have a natural satellite.

You are quite correct Comrade Sheepy. NASA accidentally destroyed it with an unmanned spacecraft, so they had to replace it with a large cardboard replica stuck to a balloon. If you look at it carefully with that telescope of yours you can actually see that the images only have two dimensions. How much more proof do we need?

That's why they had to fake the whole moon landing thing. I'm surprised more people are not aware of this. I suppose it's because the US is beaming thought control waves from their satellites.

Thanks for corroborating what I have always suspected Sir Geezer....
.

all ewe need is a firefighters ladder and with a long stick ewe can prod it ewe know !
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #401 on: 05/02/2010 12:47:33 »
I shield my brain with a lead lined sporran.

I shield mine with porridge and tin foil.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #402 on: 14/02/2010 22:52:13 »
Hi Cosmored
Forgive me, I came late to this discussion. I understand that you are an advocate of the notion that the Apollo project of the 60s and 70s of the last century never really happened; that a conspiracy to simulate the project's ambitions, setbacks and successes was and is afoot.

Well as a schoolboy then I was excited and inspired by Apollo; followed it closely for a decade and more; watched Neil live on black & white low res TV in class with my school mates, teachers, an enlightened principal, support staff & many others crammed into the TV room as Neil for us all placed a human footprint on our Moon.

And now...and now you tell me that...it didn't really happen!! Well you can imagine my disappointment with this news. But you know, I cling to a hope that it did happen; that we together there in July 69 in that little local school were a small part of it. And even given that the Apollo project may have been politically and ideologically driven, in my view the Apollo effort was the greatest, most noble, most courageous, most inspirational achievement of humanity on our Earth in our twentieth century. Well, that's if it really happened...sigh.

So tell me Cosmored please, give it your single best shot, your single best piece of evidence, your single incontrovertible truth, your best single bedrock of fact; that which within one statement supported by evidence convinces me that I was misled about Apollo. That's not too much to ask is it? To support or destroy my life's inspiration?

The reason I ask for just one, your single best piece of evidence supporting the alleged conspiracy theory about Apollo is because I'm reminded of Albert Einstein, a German Jew. With regard to some theory or another proposed by Einstein, may have been Relativity (Special or General), may have been something else, Adolph Hitler of Nazi infamy assembled "one hundred scientists against Einstein".

Albert said "Why one hundred? If I'm wrong, one is enough."

So please Cosmored, just one is enough. Just one smoking gun. Your best single shot. If that is true for you, then all is true. If that fails, then all fails. Please, what is it?
Sincerely
Democritus     
 

 


The smoking gun can be anything for anyone.
It all depends if it happens to conflict with what you are informed about.

For example for photographers it could be photography for radiologists, radiation, etc.

For me, the first smoking gun is the photography and film. 
Impossible photography.  Clearly edited photography.
These anyone can now do themselves with a photo editing program.









As for photography, one can find many many anomalies.
Anomalies that debunkers dont dare to touch.
Sure, they try to explain away the weird shadow lines, the exposure issues,
the "c" rock, but they dont go deeper than that.






But that might not be enough.  Maybe you are hanging on by another string.
Question you should ask, what is it that makes you so sure they went?
What is the evidence for it, and then we can see if that can be contradicted.


*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #403 on: 14/02/2010 23:56:55 »
Wouldn't it be a lot more interesting to analyse why you would want to prove it didn't actually happen?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline seemoe

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #404 on: 15/02/2010 01:14:23 »
Anomalies that debunkers dont dare to touch.
Sure, they try to explain away the weird shadow lines, the exposure issues,
the "c" rock, but they dont go deeper than that.

No?

Here's your "anomalies" explained (in great detail): http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #405 on: 15/02/2010 02:16:24 »
Anomalies that debunkers dont dare to touch.
Sure, they try to explain away the weird shadow lines, the exposure issues,
the "c" rock, but they dont go deeper than that.

No?

Here's your "anomalies" explained (in great detail): http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm


Ummm.... No.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #406 on: 15/02/2010 06:59:13 »
FoosM. Please note that the pictures are older than photoshop.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #407 on: 15/02/2010 13:27:42 »
There's some stuff they can't explain satisfactorily such as the way the flag moves without being touched in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+flags+are+alive+moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f

Here's the partial summary of evidence I posted on page 15.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=232.msg280389#msg280389

Quote
But that might not be enough.  Maybe you are hanging on by another string.
Question you should ask, what is it that makes you so sure they went?
What is the evidence for it, and then we can see if that can be contradicted.
Good point.

I've never seen anything I'd call proof that they went but I've seen lots of what I'd call proof that at least some of the footage was faked in a studio.  If they really went, why would they have faked any of the footage.

Somebody post something he or she considers to be proof that they went and we can discuss whether it's really proof.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #408 on: 15/02/2010 17:59:59 »
Ah ha! I get it now. It's like the guy in the Monty Python sketch who wants an argument. He really doesn't care what it's about as long as he has an argument.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #409 on: 15/02/2010 19:01:17 »
The man in the sketch paid for his argument.

Anyway, Cosmored. As I pointed out, there is nothing that anyone could possibly post here that would convince you. Trying to do so would be a waste of time.

Also, FoosM needs to learn the difference between a tripod and a biped.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #410 on: 15/02/2010 19:21:06 »
The man in the sketch paid for his argument.

No he didn't.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #411 on: 15/02/2010 21:17:41 »
FoosM. Please note that the pictures are older than photoshop.

Please note that image editing has been around for quite a long time and using the term photo shopping simply means the photos were edited.  Like one would say get a kleenex in place of saying get a tissue.  

Point is, you fail to comment on the actual image editing.
Because you cant.  So you try to redirect the argument on semantics.

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #412 on: 15/02/2010 22:23:04 »
The man in the sketch paid for his argument.

Anyway, Cosmored. As I pointed out, there is nothing that anyone could possibly post here that would convince you. Trying to do so would be a waste of time.

Also, FoosM needs to learn the difference between a tripod and a biped.

Fail.  Trying to attack the messenger.
Pitiful.
Do your best to prove the allegations wrong.
Show how those images are not manipulated.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #413 on: 16/02/2010 05:17:20 »
You want an argument. Sorry. We'll only give you an argument if you put down a $1,000,000 deposit.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #414 on: 16/02/2010 14:02:23 »
Hmmm.... curiously nobody is trying to debunk the photos.


Ok here is another one.
What the hell is a "barbecue roll" ?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #415 on: 16/02/2010 19:52:07 »
OK a few points
You say that faking stuff is easy because you can do it with photoshop. True enough but, at the time it wasn't easy because not only was there no photoshop, there was no digital photography or editing.
It's not like saying kleenex instead of tissue; it's like saying kleenex instead of carved stone tablets.
Also it's not a semantic point. The question to consider is this
"which is easier- going to the moon or faking it?"
The more difficult it would have been to fake, the more likely it is to be real.
In the bad old days faking it would have been much more difficult and this makes the moon landings more likely.

The assertion that the shot could only have been made using a tripod is not supported by any evidence.
In all sensible likelihood the picture was taken using a biped.
If that's false then prove it so.

As for asking me to "Show how those images are not manipulated."
I can't.
It's perfectly possible that you faked them.

That was the basis of my comment to Cosmored.
There really is no point to discussing this because any image can be faked.
I already pointed out that true proof of this issue is, at least over a web page, impossible.
Then, in spite of this you say "Do your best to prove the allegations wrong." which leaves me wondering how you failed to understand the point.

Anyway, that's not the way it works.
You are the one making the extraordinary claim so it falls to you to provide the extraordinary evidence.
So far it's you who gets the "fail" grade.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #416 on: 17/02/2010 11:17:29 »
OK a few points
You say that faking stuff is easy because you can do it with photoshop.
------
No I didnt say that.
I said image editing has been around for quite some time.
Please read carefully next time.


True enough but, at the time it wasn't easy because not only was there no photoshop, there was no digital photography or editing.
------
There was no editing...
Are you serious?
You think cut & paste was only invented in the digital age?
You think movies like 2001, Star Wars, Mary Poppins could only be done in the digital age?
Because those are all examples MOVING IMAGES that have been composited.


It's not like saying kleenex instead of tissue; it's like saying kleenex instead of carved stone tablets.
-----
No

Also it's not a semantic point. The question to consider is this
"which is easier- going to the moon or faking it?"
-----
Faking it.


The more difficult it would have been to fake, the more likely it is to be real.
In the bad old days faking it would have been much more difficult and this makes the moon landings more likely.
-------
Faking it was easy.  Especially due to Public expectation.
The Public wanted to believe. Like kids wanting to believe in Santa Clause.
NASA had a bigger production team headed by scientists and budget to make it seem real.
Just like how they easily fake news nowadays. 
Because you are programmed to think news=real and movies=fake, its easy to apply special effects used news and have people believe it.

The assertion that the shot could only have been made using a tripod is not supported by any evidence.
In all sensible likelihood the picture was taken using a biped.
If that's false then prove it so.
------
Its the photos themselves.
Wow... again... the PHOTOS are the evidence!!!
You cant have two photos shot with a manual camera and a significant amount of time passing line up so perfectly!  Its impossible!  Dont you get it?
Look at the photos and use your common sense.
Use life experience!  Its that easy!


As for asking me to "Show how those images are not manipulated."
I can't.
It's perfectly possible that you faked them.
-----
There is a reason there are numbers behind the photos.
Its so you can go to those many NASA sites and download the photos
and check them yourselves.  You see, if you dont do that, and are only
giving lip service, you are not interested in the truth.  You are interested
to keep the lie going out of the need to believe in the fantasy of
space travel.  That hope that one day we will be traveling the stars like Kirk and crew in Star Trek.
Well the alarm is ringing and its time to wake up.



That was the basis of my comment to Cosmored.
There really is no point to discussing this because any image can be faked.
----
Yes, the question is did NASA fake it?
And what are you doing to give evidence to the contrary?


I already pointed out that true proof of this issue is, at least over a web page, impossible.
Then, in spite of this you say "Do your best to prove the allegations wrong." which leaves me wondering how you failed to understand the point.
=----
I understand these are statements of cowardice.


Anyway, that's not the way it works.
You are the one making the extraordinary claim so it falls to you to provide the extraordinary evidence.
So far it's you who gets the "fail" grade.
-----
Sorry dude, you just an ostrich.
Willing to get robbed and pillaged by NAZI's and their bankers.
Time is running out, you people need to start looking behind the curtain.


*

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #417 on: 17/02/2010 18:22:08 »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #418 on: 17/02/2010 19:38:14 »
This is funny; the guy doesn't want an argument; he wants a bad one.
"No I didnt say that.
I said image editing has been around for quite some time.
Please read carefully next time. "

What you actually said was
"These anyone can now do themselves with a photo editing program."
I think I paraphrased you reasonably; I said "Please note that the pictures are older than photoshop." (other photo editing programs are available). I was pointing out that the ease with which I can now edit pictures makes people think it was always easy. Way back when they landed on the moon the technology to manipulate pictures that way simply wasn't around.

"There was no editing...
Are you serious?
You think cut & paste was only invented in the digital age?
You think movies like 2001, Star Wars, Mary Poppins could only be done in the digital age?
Because those are all examples MOVING IMAGES that have been composited."


Strawman alert! [::)]
I never said there was no editing.
 I know all about the original "cut and paste". I also know that it's easier with digital image processing. What I said was not that it was impossible- just more difficult.

"Sorry dude, you just an ostrich.
Willing to get robbed and pillaged by NAZI's and their bankers.
Time is running out, you people need to start looking behind the curtain."


ROFL
 [;D]
« Last Edit: 17/02/2010 19:41:44 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #419 on: 17/02/2010 19:52:57 »
The official NASA position on the Chinese space walk is that it was real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8xLsQ1MIE
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

What do you pro-Apollo people have to say about this?
Well, here's a quote from one of those websites with my emphasis.
"Dr. Qu Zheng, Senior Physics Engineer of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, analyzed the inconsistencies in the live video-feed. The questionable points include that earth’s atmosphere was not visible. A cloud suddenly changed in an obvious fashion, there was no background noise as in past conversations between the astronauts in the spacecraft and regime leader Hu Jintao on earth. The video showed the craft flying over the ocean while it was supposed to be over land according orbit calculations."
It doesn't look like they fooled NASA.
Incidentally, since, even with today's vastly better technology and a totalitarian society, the Chinese can't come up with a fake that isn't spotted damn near instantly, can anyone explain how NASA did so much better nigh half a century ago?
This is probably the best evidence for the fact that the Apollo stuff was real. It's proof that it's bloody hard to fake space.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #420 on: 17/02/2010 21:58:08 »
Willing to get robbed and pillaged by NAZI's and their bankers.


Well Foos, if you are right about that you might not want to be quite so vocal about it. These ruthless people must have spent a fortune creating this conspiracy, so I'm sure they won't be too pleased with anyone who tries to expose them. Obviously they are very well connected too. You never know who you might be talking to.

BTW - keep an eye open for any black helicopters loitering in your area. 
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #421 on: 17/02/2010 22:28:24 »
Damn you Geezer!
I was hoping to pick up the bounty for shopping FoosM to the "authorities".
I will just have to make do with the cash for grassing up Cosmored but the "powers that be" were doing a special on doubles.
Bugger!
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #422 on: 18/02/2010 00:08:41 »
Bored chemist :
Quote
Strawman alert! roll eyes
I never said there was no editing.
 I know all about the original "cut and paste". I also know that it's easier with digital image processing. What I said was not that it was impossible- just more difficult.

After he said

Quote
True enough but, at the time it wasn't easy because not only was there no photoshop, there was no digital photography or editing.
-----

Bored chemist... stay away from anything that requires a healthy working brain.
And if you want to claim you meant digital editing, go right on ahead and do so, but you still fail for
even bringing the topic up.  Go to those NASA websites download those pictures and tell me those are true blue
non edited photos.  You cant can you.  That's why your stalling.

"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase that really helps explain why its hard for many of you believers of the manned moon landing to even begin to look at the inconsistencies. 

You think image editing & special efx was so difficult back in the 60's when there is plenty of proof for it.
Yet you have no problem believing man could safely land men on the moon and have them return with no loss of life.  Yet we cant do it NOW!

The sodium  vapor  process  (ocassionally referred to as yellowscreen) was an old technique for combining actors and background footage, developed exclusively by The Walt Disney Company as an alternative to the more common bluescreen process.

An actor is filmed performing in front of a yellow screen and lit with powerful sodium vapor lights. A camera with a special prism is used to create a matte
simultaneously with the color footage, so that the footage can later be combined with another shot without the two images showing through each other.  The technique was used in the films Mary Poppins...

Ahh yes, the pre-Apollo film Mary Poppins where "Everything from the two-strip sodium process and piano wire to bungee cords was used to create the magical sequences."


Again I ask... what did NASA mean by Barbecue Roll?

I know you dont want to touch it because its a hot potato, lol.




*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #423 on: 18/02/2010 00:25:01 »
Well Foos, if you are right about that you might not want to be quite so vocal about it. These ruthless people must have spent a fortune creating this conspiracy, so I'm sure they won't be too pleased with anyone who tries to expose them. Obviously they are very well connected too. You never know who you might be talking to.

BTW - keep an eye open for any black helicopters loitering in your area. 
[/quote]

Laugh it up fuzzball, but dont be surprised when your internet is taken away and your skies are full of drones. You'll be crying crocodile tears while your waiting hours in the bread lines.



*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #424 on: 18/02/2010 00:31:32 »
The official NASA position on the Chinese space walk is that it was real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8xLsQ1MIE
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

What do you pro-Apollo people have to say about this?
Well, here's a quote from one of those websites with my emphasis.
"Dr. Qu Zheng, Senior Physics Engineer of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, analyzed the inconsistencies in the live video-feed. The questionable points include that earth’s atmosphere was not visible. A cloud suddenly changed in an obvious fashion, there was no background noise as in past conversations between the astronauts in the spacecraft and regime leader Hu Jintao on earth. The video showed the craft flying over the ocean while it was supposed to be over land according orbit calculations."
It doesn't look like they fooled NASA.
Incidentally, since, even with today's vastly better technology and a totalitarian society, the Chinese can't come up with a fake that isn't spotted damn near instantly, can anyone explain how NASA did so much better nigh half a century ago?
This is probably the best evidence for the fact that the Apollo stuff was real. It's proof that it's bloody hard to fake space.

Oh lordy, you better do better than that you conspiracy nut.  Dont tell me you think China would lie about their space walk?  Why? And based on what facts?  Are you calling all those engineers and scientists who worked on their space program liars? How come we havent heard from any whistle-blowers?  And if they lied, why didnt the US call them out on it?

LOL




*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #425 on: 18/02/2010 02:44:24 »
Laugh it up fuzzball, but dont be surprised when your internet is taken away and your skies are full of drones. You'll be crying crocodile tears while your waiting hours in the bread lines.


Thanks for your concern, but don't worry about me. The profit margin on drones is huge. Some might even call it obscene.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #426 on: 18/02/2010 04:19:19 »
Damn you Geezer!
I was hoping to pick up the bounty for shopping FoosM to the "authorities".
I will just have to make do with the cash for grassing up Cosmored but the "powers that be" were doing a special on doubles.
Bugger!


Hard cheese BC. They are already on "the list".
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #427 on: 18/02/2010 11:34:51 »
Laugh it up fuzzball, but dont be surprised when your internet is taken away and your skies are full of drones. You'll be crying crocodile tears while your waiting hours in the bread lines.


Thanks for your concern, but don't worry about me. The profit margin on drones is huge. Some might even call it obscene.

Who is worried? All I said is dont be surprised.


*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #428 on: 18/02/2010 21:18:05 »
I have always considered it a matter of scientific "unknowingness" that leads one to believe that we didn't go to the moon
-----
Well your wrong.


They are the modern "Flat Earthers". 
-----
No they are still around and have their own agenda


The history of scientific progress and achievement for at least several hundreds of years is quite voluminous, and it clearly speaks for itself. 
-----
It also speaks of numerous cases of being miss-used
to propagate political agendas and stealing hard earned income from citizens via bloated taxes.


Unfortunately, it seems that the doubters who believe such things are the ones who cannot fathom the history of science even if it were laid out in front of them. 
---
Rolls eyes.


I think the attraction of arguing against having gone to the moon involves the fact that it is untouchable and thus personally unverifiable for all of us except a handful of elites. 
-----
You got that right.  Its unverifiable



The moon is also "above" every one of us, so it takes on a spiritual kind of presence in addition to the seeming impossibility to struggle against so much gravity for so long to get there. 
-----
I doubt it, we all see gravity defying devices being used and are using them everyday.  You know, airplanes, missiles, etc.


Also mixed in with this too, I think, is a grassroots anti-establishment tinge ... a redneck versus ivy league kind of animosity. 
-----
I bet you dont even know where the term redneck comes from, and what it stood for.



Also, only governments (US and SU) have gone to the moon.  For me, it is silly to think that, despite the Cold War animosity between the US and the SU, both saw fit to not expose what would be the lies and deceptions of the other in regards to the race to the moon.
-----
Then your just plain silly.
Considering how the world & US has accepted the Chinese spacewalk.


Also too, I don't recall anyone not believing that men in the the Trieste bathyscaphe descended 7 miles into the deep, dark ocean to where the pressures (15,500 psi) would crush a man with a force of almost 50,000,000 pounds. 
----
7 miles is a far cry from 240.000 miles


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #429 on: 18/02/2010 21:58:45 »
"And if you want to claim you meant digital editing", "
Of course that's what I meant.
"go right on ahead and do so, but you still fail for even bringing the topic up. "



You brought it up.
You said "These anyone can now do themselves with a photo editing program." in your very first post on the matter.
Do you remember that or were you too busy worrying about my job needing a healthy brain.

As for "Go to those NASA websites download those pictures and tell me those are true blue
non edited photos.  You cant can you.  That's why your stalling. "
Why don't you listen?
Don't you understand that I have said before that nothing on the web is "real" it can all be faked.
Going directly to NASA'a site doesn't help.
Nor would going to the film.
My dad has a picture of a red and green zebra made without any digital image technology ( and since it dates from about 1980 not many places could have done the processing digitally at the time).
It doesn't mean the animal existed.

How many times do I have to say that citing an image on a web page proves precisely nothing?

I don't need to post a web address to show that no government has ever maintained any project for any length of time without screwing it up. That's common knowledge.
You, on the other hand, maintain that a set of successive US governments in collusion with the Russians and probably the Chinese, have maintained one of the most difficult subterfuges imaginable.

Do you think your position is viable?

On the other hand, the Chinese faked spacewalk really is important.
It proves that even now, decades later a sophisticated, technologically advanced, totalitarian society deploying  enormous resources still can't fake a few minutes of video well enough to convince the experts for long.
How the **** do you think NASA managed to get away with it for so long using 60's technology?


BTW, Geezer, Your right- I should have checked "the list" first.
 I work with one of those drones (the bastards won't let me fly it though) and you're right, the price is horrible.

Incidentally can anyone see how this outburst
"I bet you dont even know where the term redneck comes from, and what it stood for." can possibly have anything to do with the debate?

I'm quite happy to admit that I had to check what it originally meant.
So?

"Also too, I don't recall anyone not believing that men in the the Trieste bathyscaphe descended 7 miles into the deep, dark ocean to where the pressures (15,500 psi) would crush a man with a force of almost 50,000,000 pounds.
----
7 miles is a far cry from 240.000 miles"

14.7 PSI is a far cry from 15,5000 PSI.
Again, my question is so what?

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #430 on: 18/02/2010 22:29:23 »
The funniest aspect of all of this is not so much that people might believe the moolanding photos were faked, it's the fact that they believe that the US government could keep a lid on the deception for fifty years! The US government is about as secure a brown paper bag.

If it had been faked, can you imagine how much one of the many conspirators could make by selling the story to the media?
« Last Edit: 19/02/2010 00:01:04 by Geezer »
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #431 on: 19/02/2010 00:49:41 »
"And if you want to claim you meant digital editing", "
Of course that's what I meant.
"go right on ahead and do so, but you still fail for even bringing the topic up. "
----
I left you a way out.


You brought it up.
You said "These anyone can now do themselves with a photo editing program." in your very first post on the matter.
Do you remember that or were you too busy worrying about my job needing a healthy brain.
----
Anyone can do what with a photo editing program?
Anyone can do what with a photo editing program?
Anyone can do what with a photo editing program?
They can see themselves if the photos were manipulated!
You get it?  You get why your answer was so brainless?


As for "Go to those NASA websites download those pictures and tell me those are true blue
non edited photos.  You cant can you.  That's why your stalling. "
Why don't you listen?
Don't you understand that I have said before that nothing on the web is "real" it can all be faked.
Going directly to NASA'a site doesn't help.
Nor would going to the film.
My dad has a picture of a red and green zebra made without any digital image technology ( and since it dates from about 1980 not many places could have done the processing digitally at the time).
It doesn't mean the animal existed.
-----
Ahhhh.... Thank you.  You have now admitted NASA's photos cannot be verified as being real.
Since NASA could have edited their own photos.  
Finally we are making some headway 'whew'
Well if you dont trust NASA's websites, then you can also order a copy of the negs and see where that gets you.
Well never mind, your too scared to look anyway.


How many times do I have to say that citing an image on a web page proves precisely nothing?

I don't need to post a web address to show that no government has ever maintained any project for any length of time without screwing it up. That's common knowledge.
You, on the other hand, maintain that a set of successive US governments in collusion with the Russians and probably the Chinese, have maintained one of the most difficult subterfuges imaginable.
-----
Ummm no because many people dont believe that man landed on the moon.
So, they failed at keeping it a secret.  Duh.
You and a few others are the ones hanging on to the fantasy, many of us have moved on.


Do you think your position is viable?

On the other hand, the Chinese faked spacewalk really is important.
It proves that even now, decades later a sophisticated, technologically advanced, totalitarian society deploying  enormous resources still can't fake a few minutes of video well enough to convince the experts for long.
How the **** do you think NASA managed to get away with it for so long using 60's technology?
----
Again, they didnt.
And, you forget the general public in the 60's, 70's, up to arguably the 90's didnt have the kind of access to
TV, INTERNET, BOOKS like we do today.


BTW, Geezer, Your right- I should have checked "the list" first.
 I work with one of those drones (the bastards won't let me fly it though) and you're right, the price is horrible.

Incidentally can anyone see how this outburst
"I bet you dont even know where the term redneck comes from, and what it stood for." can possibly have anything to do with the debate?

I'm quite happy to admit that I had to check what it originally meant.
So?
-----
So you are happy, what did you learn?


"Also too, I don't recall anyone not believing that men in the the Trieste bathyscaphe descended 7 miles into the deep, dark ocean to where the pressures (15,500 psi) would crush a man with a force of almost 50,000,000 pounds.
----
7 miles is a far cry from 240.000 miles"

14.7 PSI is a far cry from 15,5000 PSI.
Again, my question is so what?
-----
I dont know, dont ask me, ask they dude that brought it up. Lol.



*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #432 on: 19/02/2010 06:39:28 »
Foos, Perhaps you missed my last post. If you did, I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on how the US managed to control all those who paticipated in the deception for such a long time. I think this information would be really useful to the NSA. Perhaps you could even work out a deal with them.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #433 on: 19/02/2010 09:54:16 »
Foos, Perhaps you missed my last post. If you did, I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on how the US managed to control all those who paticipated in the deception for such a long time. I think this information would be really useful to the NSA. Perhaps you could even work out a deal with them.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post on the matter.
Secondly, how many people you think were in on it?

And also, you got this stupid reasoning that because some programs have been revealed
you think everything in the government gets revealed.

You also assume that everything that gets revealed is due to leaks.
Its not. 
Some of it is whistle blowing, some of it is research- meaning the information was there but nobody put the pieces together, some intentional- meaning the statue of limitations has ended.  Thats why you alot of secret documents are now available to the public.  Including some NASA documents.

*

Offline FoosM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 14
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #434 on: 19/02/2010 10:00:48 »
I wonder how it feels to think that we didn't go to the moon. 
------
I wonder how it feels to continue to believe in something that clearly is based on fraud.



 I suppose, it doesn't matter one way or the other in my life.  Whether I believe one way or the other doesn't change my income, doesn't change my love life, doesn't change my belief in an afterlife, doesn't change my looks, doesn't change my taxes, etc.  This is just one of those astronomy things, like the Big Bang or the Nebular Hypothesis, where we can simply sit around and give our own opinions.
Of course it affects your Taxes, you are paying for the program-ming.
Of course it affects your life, NASA was behind the whole global warming scam.
That meant radical changes in your lifestyle, including more taxes!

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #435 on: 19/02/2010 10:08:27 »
lol

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #436 on: 19/02/2010 10:23:46 »
This has become nonsense and flaming.  No side will shift on the discussion, so what's the point?

I'm locking the thread.  Polite personal messages with good reasons to keep the discussion going may convince me to unlock it.