[neilep]

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 !

[neilep]

I shield my brain with a lead lined sporran.

I shield mine with porridge and tin foil.

[FoosM]

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.

[Geezer]

Wouldn't it be a lot more interesting to analyse why you would want to prove it didn't actually happen?

[seemoe]

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): newbielink:http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm [nonactive]

[FoosM]

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 [nofollow]

Ummm.... No.

[Bored chemist]

FoosM. Please note that the pictures are older than photoshop.

[Cosmored]

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/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

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.

[Geezer]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Geezer]

The man in the sketch paid for his argument.

No he didn't.

[FoosM]

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.

[FoosM]

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.

[Geezer]

You want an argument. Sorry. We'll only give you an argument if you put down a $1,000,000 deposit.

[FoosM]

Hmmm.... curiously nobody is trying to debunk the photos.


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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[FoosM]

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.

[Cosmored]

The official NASA position on the Chinese space walk is that it was real.

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?

[Bored chemist]

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
 []

[Bored chemist]

The official NASA position on the Chinese space walk is that it was real.

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.