Faked Moon Landings: A Compilation Of Surmounting Evidence

Submitted by: monkwarrior 4 months ago in Science


Is NASA telling us the truth, or holding up a hoax? What are they hiding?
There are 208 comments:
Male 3,410
 NEW DRINKING GAME! do a shot everytime monkwarrior says ad-hominem
5
Reply
Male 569
rumham Jesus christ, rumham, seriously?  I'll be wasted in 20 minutes.
4
Reply
Male 4,952
irk LOL!
3
Reply
Male 3,447
rumham Fuck...now I'm drunk again...
4
Reply
Male 9,769
OK. Let me dispel the misinformation here with a little bit of math.

The moon is 238,000 miles away.
The biggest item left on the moon is around 12 feet across.
Looking at something that is 12 feet across from 239,000 miles away is the same as looking at something 1 inch across from 1,660 miles away.

That means I can see the moon lander with my telescope from earth just as easily as I could see a quarter in Atlanta with my telescope from Phoenix (earth curvature aside obviously). 

Do you guys understand how fucking retarded that is?
3
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod i actually fully agree with your post, that was one part of the video i thought was a bit misinformed.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
Do you guys understand how fucking retarded that is?



holygod Given this conversation is about how NASA faked the moon landing they probably don't.  This is more of a Logic need not apply check your brain out before you enter type of conversation.
3
Reply
Male 5,475
normalfreak2 actually most do.
-1
Reply
Male 318
1.If it had been faked the soviets would have proven it to the world just to humiliate the west.
2.If it was faked everyone with a telescope or good pair of binoculars has to be in on keeping the secret.
3.Get a decent telescope, doesn't even have to be a high end one. there is equiptment that can be seen on a clear night. There is a large reflector that can be seen and is used routinely to get accurate distance measurements and calculate how fast the moon is moving away from Earth, about 2 inches per year.  
2
Reply
Male 9,769
taxidriver Everyone with a telescope or a good pair of binoculars? You are badly misinformed and spreading misinformation. Google.

You might as well tell people they can see pluto's moons by using their camera's zoom.
2
Reply
Male 4,952
holygod Pardon the interruption, but in point of fact, you actually can see the four largest moons of Jupiter (AKA, the Galilean moons) with a zoom lens camera (the Nikon COOLPIX P900, specifically).

Jupiter and the Galilean moons shot with a Nikon P900.
-1
Reply
Male 9,769
squrlz4ever pluto buddy, not jupiter.
2
Reply
Male 4,952
holygod D'oh! My bad. Sorry about that. Yes, as good as the P900 is, I think it can safely be said that Pluto's moons are out of reach. ~Squrlz scampers offstage, embarrassed~
1
Reply
Male 9,769
squrlz4ever No worries little buddy. 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
taxidriver holygod is actually right.  no equipment is seen from earth.
1
Reply
81
If your so compelled to prove N.A.S.A has never been to the moon why not just use very nice very expensive equipment to scan the moon for the equipment they left. I have absolutely no care whatsoever as to the validity of their claims simply because It has no effect on my life. I wouldn't invest thousands of hours to prove them wrong, it is a waist of time. For the amount of effort and time put into trying to refute N.A.S.A's claims of landing on the moon no one has focused their efforts on the obvious, look at the moon. All the interviews, harassment, recorded footage played and books written why has no one gotten access to high powered optics capable  of taking close up footage of the surface of the moon.  I cant take these claims seriously. I have not heard from any reputable sources that N.A.S.A falsified its endeavors. It would not be hard for another country or company to do this. We have the technology to launch satellites into orbit that can take this type of footage. Many companies/governments around the world are putting satellites into orbit so, I think anyone who constantly plays cryptic footage about faking the moon landing should fuck off. 

Just validate your claims using irrefutable evidence. instead of meaningless bullshit.

technically there is Oxygen inside the suits and the sound sensing devices are also in the suits, so sound could be heard from them. If the suit vibrates from an impact its possible the microphone could pick it up. While it is compelling evidence its not solid evidence. If N.A.S.A was faking the moon landing It would be pretty silly for some of the smartest people on the planet not to do this in the simulated vacuums they have at HQ. 

Nasa guy 1 :"hey um....where do you want to record the moon landing"
Nasa guy 2 :"lets just do it in the small model display room we created"
nasa guy 1 :"you sure i mean we do have a huge room that we can turn into a vacuum that already has a bunch of our equipment in it"
nasa guy 2 : " nah the public is too stupid to care about scientific details and I want to make our staff suffer by making them move all that equipment across the nasa campus."
nasa guy 1 : " haha ok lets just half ass it then."
3
Reply
Male 9,769
bill_watson No telescope on earth is powerful enough to see those objects on the moon, not even the giant building sized observatory ones, let alone what you can buy. 
3
Reply
81
holygod your missing the point, first orbital satelites can view objects on the surface of the earth in clear detail. So telescopic satelites could take detailed photos of the surface of the moon.
Right now they are taking detailed pictures of the gas giant jupiter using an orbital satelite.
This video is claiming that russia and other countries know nasa did not go to the moon.
I have heard nothing in the mainstream  from any news sources indicating that these countries have said this.
If a large corporation or country wanted to debunk this they could send a satellite to view the moon.
The amount of energy these conspiracy theorists have gone to to prove nasa didnt go to the moon is considerable, at this point why not put it to the test and find the REFLECTIVE MIRRORS LEFT ON THE MOON. if you have ever used google earth or even played with published nasa satelite footage like I have you should know it is possible to view objects on the surface of a celestial object using orbital satelites. Please read the entire post, i didnt say go to sears and buy a telescope you tard.
I specifically mention satlites and telescopics on them. If you are not willing to go through the process of doing this then dont waist my time with crazy theories.
So, get together with your colllective conspiracy buddies and engineer expensive equipment to prove yourself right and stop posting this garbage until you do.
I for one dont care enough about something like this to invest thousands of hours building the stuff needed to do it.

The thing is, nasa knows how the physics in space works. If they had recorded the moon landing in a studio then they easilly could have edited the footage to remove the fucking sound.
1
Reply
Male 3,213
holygod 
Space based telescopes could.
But even failing that, one can bounce laser beams - a la BBT - off of manmade reflectors left there.
Of course, telescopes are 'alternative' inventions - and may in fact be magic.
3
Reply
Male 9,769
captkangaroo actually i believe i read that none of the telescopes orbiting earth can. Not even hubble. 
2
Reply
81
holygod How often do companies launch satelites into orbit? How much more expensive would it be for some nut to send one of them to orbit the moon? Whats an extra 20 million on a billion dollar project.

I am no engineer, nor am i a scientist, and I dont waist my life on trivial things such as trying to prove nasa didnt land on the moon but if your going to have an entire community obsess over it for years and years and years, just do the insane amounts of science, research and development to make it happen. It is possible.
It could happen if they really wanted it to.
Until their community does I wont hold anything they spout to be credible.

If i can read billboards and signs using google earths satelite footage you can definitely view objects on the moon without sending a manned spacecraft. The technology for satelite imagery is out there for all to see so you cant deny that building a satelite to orbit the moon and take pictures isnt possible.
1
Reply
Male 4,952
bill_watson Actually, there already is a spacecraft orbiting the Moon. Since 2009, NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has been collecting data and taking pictures, including photos of the Apollo equipment left behind by the astronauts--even the astronauts' footprints (see below). Of course, all of these images are dismissed as fake by the Moon landing conspiracy theorists.

LRO imagery of the Apollo 15 site.


For more information about the LRO mission, click here.

For a collection of six LRO images showing all six Apollo sites where man walked on the Moon, click here (photos are zoomable).

Lastly, Bill, it looks like you're new around here, so welcome! ~Squrlz pulls out the IAB Welcome Wagon~  *squeak squeak squeak squeak squeak*  I'm delighted to see you've already got a great avatar image, always a plus.

1
Reply
81
squrlz4ever thats nice. But did the nuts who claim nasa didnt land on the moon build it and prove once and for all that nasa didnt land on the moon? I want them to man up andbuild and semd their own satelite.


Also thanks for the welcone ive visited this website almost every day for years. Firt post though.

This is like the third nasa faked the landing article ive seen posted and the trolling finally made me crack.
I typed these from my phone so you can throw grammar out the window. I tried to efmdit out the mistakes but there are too many
2
Reply
Male 4,952
bill_watson No, of course not. NASA built it. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Moon landing conspiracy theorists to launch any spacecraft.

You're welcome regarding the wagon. I'm glad you finally pulled the trigger and made an account. Yeah, a lot of people find these conspiracy posts maddening, as evidenced by the 188 comments (and counting). As much as I dislike the topic, I have to say the debates are sometimes really good reading.

No worries at all on the typos. Have a great weekend!
1
Reply
Male 3,213
holygod
 http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/45-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-landings/122-are-there-telescopes-that-can-see-the-flag-and-lunar-rover-on-the-moon-beginner
When you're right, you're right - and you're right.

2
Reply
Male 5,475
Obviously there are questions about this achievement, and while there is supposedly evidence for it, there is also evidence against it.  Many people will claim for either side, but others take a measured response.  

However, combined with a great number of unanswered questions, the inability to repeat this achievement, even ignoring the moon as the next obvious and sensible step for humankind expanding to the heavens (if we can even expand past low earth orbit at all that is), the only real step is to go back and prove it.  To go there and leave an undeniable, visible to the naked human eye, settlement on the moon.  

This is an extraordinary achievement, so your evidence better be extraordinary.  None of this "yeah, well we already did it and heres some flimsy evidence so just accept it" is gonna cut it for the up and coming generation, which is quite informed now in the information age.  So the debates will continue over the evidence, and just grow senseless.

After 1/2 a century since the supposed achievement, the evidence is in question.  Going to the moon has been in regression in comparison to humankind's historical achievements from when they were found to 1/2 a century later. Time to back and do it again, but this time don't delete evidence of your 'most prized achievement' as you did back then, and open up and stream everything uncut and live, with plenty of ways for independent people to track the missions.

Start a sensible migration for humankind into the heavens by starting on what is, based on our information, the most obvious and sensible choice.  Unless of course, low earth orbit is our limit?
-4
Reply
Male 2,694
monkwarrior The only reason to go back to the moon it would seem is to satisfy people who think like you do.  We went there...there's nothing there and not much point of returning.  It's a lifeless chunk of rock with no atmosphere.  200 degrees in the sun, -200 in the shade and only 2 light seconds away.  What's the fucking point of putting a base there?  Now Mars is a different story.  
5
Reply
Male 5,475
dromed not at all
what you say though is a common echo i hear, but a mis-informed one imho.

The safety issues facing mars,getting started, the time it takes to build and test, is just immense. Also, with help 6 months away at a good time, vs supposedly 3 days any time with the moon, makes the moon the perfect stepping stone from Low Earth Orbit, if not, at least lunar orbit to start.
-6
Reply
Male 2,694
monkwarrior sorry mate...nothing we can't do in earth orbit.
3
Reply
Male 5,475
dromed Yes it's a common claim from the west, however the European way of thinking is "why would you be so stupid to try to learn to run before you walk?".

Though i admit, it would make a lot of sense that they want to focus on mars if indeed the moon landing was faked.  With technology where it is today it would be very hard for them to fake another moon landing, but much easier for them to fake a mars one, because no one can see it, hah!

This is probably the only 'sensible' way you can claim going to mars is more intelligent than building a stepping stone on the moon as the article i pointed to previously states.
-2
Reply
Male 3,649
Bah, this is just another western media delusion.
2
Reply
Male 3,649
Of course they faked the moon landing.

See, they planned it all out, but the director didn't want a synthetic background. So, he had NASA get them to the moon to shoot the footage. But it's fake, of course.
3
Reply
Male 1,018
"death to the presidency"
"don't trust western media"
"moon landing was faked"

Boys, we may have a genuine Russian troll here. I wonder if he's the payed kind...
8
Reply
Male 4,952
marsii I think there are many valid points about that theory. I'm not saying I believe it, I'm just saying that I would have to see more evidence to be convinced that Monk isn't a Russian troll. I think there are serious questions that haven't been answered. ~squirrel wink~
2
Reply
Male 5,475
marsii suit yourself, but from my experience it's the trolls who start out the gate with a twirl'o fallacies, like you did.
-6
Reply
Male 2,694
I've seen quite compelling evidence that in 1969 it would have been easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it and deceive billions of people.  Of course today we'd be much more able to fake it but if that's the case then why the fuck would the deniers change their tune even if we actually went back?  Besides, Russia was tracking all our shit and to pull off such a hoax would take a conspiracy of breathtaking proportions.  Three men can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead.
8
Reply
Male 569
dromed Yup.  This is a simple fact that the deniers don't seem to take into account.  Faking this, *multiple times*, with the Russians just itching to discredit it, alone would make it incredibly difficult to fake successfully.
5
Reply
Male 3,496
Some folks are just wired to see conspiracies too readily.

Moon landing, flat earth, vaccination, 9/11, JFK.. whatever.

Problem is, too many people feel obligated to change their mind lol.

Most of these conspiracies, you could at least ARGUE that someone directly benefits from the item at hand (i guess the US could claim a victory over the russians in the space race?).  This would in no way increase the chance of the conspiracy being real, it just makes sense for someone to consider it.

EXCEPT flat earth, i still do not see who would benefit from creating this notion of a flat earth.
6
Reply
Male 682
I guess JFK's legacy will be questioned on forever and ever.
3
Reply
Male 5,475
fuad119 at least until humankind can expand to the moon.
-4
Reply
Male 129
monkwarrior considering the shit we got going on at the ISS is a lot more complicated than landing on the moon I think we've passed "expanding to the moon"
4
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 if you believe, they put a man on the moon and the ISS.
-4
Reply
Male 129
monkwarrior do you also not believe that there are other planets orbiting the sun?
2
Reply
Male 5,475
boredusernames01 what i believe is that humankind needs to get access to space in larger numbers than currently claimed.
-2
Reply
Male 5,475
jaysingrimm ad-hominem
attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Its a fallacy considered to be an error in reasoning, and is quite often happily employed by trolls like yourself jay.  

Personally it is quite telling that is all the user has when they come out the gate with them, as you have shown on numerous occasions.
-4
Reply
Male 2,637
monkwarrior
I'm genuinely concerned for you, not because of what you believe, but how you address those beliefs.

Please help yourself - Only you can.
4
Reply
Male 5,475
jaysingrimm Don't be.  You're simply embarrassed that you're crashing and burning again, having your ridiculousness exposed.  Do yourself a favor, take your own advise man.  But at the very least try to focus on not being so dependent on fallacies, thinking it's intelligent, when it simply shows you to be of poor reasoning.
-4
Reply
Male 3,447
I'ma leave this here too for everyone:

https://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

If you have any further questions, email the author.  He will be happy to answer them for you.

monkwarrior Moon Landing Fake, check...Flat Earth Possible, check...Marijuana might actually be a medical alternative to Big Pharma...OH HELL NO!  IT'S EVIL!

I'm totally lost with your concept of conspiracy...
6
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 no wonder, because you make up dishonest ad-hominems, and try to assert them as fact.  Also, your link doesn't even explain the stars issue  as this video points out at 12:25 and going forward, it 'conveniently' ignored this clear confusion coming from nasa spokespeople.  
-3
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior You didn't even read the site numb-nuts...

"
 OK, here's the kicker... if you will look at section 3 you will notice there are no stars in the sky. In fact, you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs, or hear an astronaut mention anything about the glorious stars that are visible when out of the earths atmosphere. 
 

This is perhaps the favorite argument of the TMLWF crowd. "There are no stars to be seen in any of the NASA Moon photographs." It is also one of the most easily countered arguments. The lunar photographs show no stars in them because they were exposed for the daylight lit lunar scenes! This badly underexposes any stars in the sky. Try setting up a manual camera (the autoexposure cameras won't easily allow you to do this) for a typical daylight exposure - use the "sunny 16" rule where you set the f-stop of your camera to f/16 and then set the exposure length to the recipricol of the ASA film speed - if you use ASA 100 film, use 1/100 of a second (or 1/125 which is more typically available). Then take a picture of the sky at night. To be sure you're simulating the lunar situation, be sure to light up a foreground object with full daytime lighting so that the printing process will be sure to expose that part of the image properly and not super stretch the dark sky. You won't find a star image there either. 


 Similarly, the astronauts eyes are adapted to the daylight scenes around them so they didn't see stars in the sky either. As an experiment to verify this affect, go from a brightly lit room to a dark location just outside and see if you see any stars when you first look up at the sky. Stars were seen, however, when the conditions were right and the crew was dark adapted. 

 One other point - the dark area near the area labeled 3 above the lit part of the lunar surface in this image is in fact the dark side of the moon, not the sky.
"


And it continues with photo evidence of the stars...

Fuck...you such a bad troll...need some cookies?
2
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 You didn't even watch the video at 12:25 because this has absolutely nothing to do with the stars explained there.  Where is his explanation for the "stars" people see from the ISS or not.

The line of thinking they are preaching is this:  When you look into space from space (when there is no atmosphere between you and space), space is blackness and you see no stars, it's a complete black velvet void.  But people in the ISS say that they can see stars and others say they can't its such a mess of silliness.  Your grasp at straws page doesn't cover it.
-3
Reply
Male 3,447
4
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 yes, you've taken up trolling as of late it seems, good luck to you with that, skipper.
-8
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior If I thought from our other discussions that you were capable or willing of following a simple argument I'd explain at what point this badly misinformed film starts blatantly lying about provable facts. As it is, I won't spend too much time debating with someone who is happy to ignore 2,500 years of proof that the earth isn't flat.

It goes without saying, though that the film is just a string of lies and misinformation. For example, skip to about the 8 minute mark when he starts talking about radiation. Don't let yourself be indoctrinated by these people. Do some research into the types of radiation encountered by the astronauts and the shielding they had to protect themselves. The man in the film says "There was no protection that I have been able to identify. I can find no reference to it."

Just for fun, I just went to find reference to it. It took me less than 5 minutes. The man is either lying or has failed to do even the most basic research. His views can be safely discarded, perhaps as actually being deliberately misleading for people like you. With this being the level of "proof" provided by the film, I didn't bother watching any further.

Have you done any research into the views presented in this film or do you just do what the film-makers want and just take it as gospel?
4
Reply
Male 5,475
DrCribbens if you weren't so willing to start out the gate with an ad-hominem, i may have taken the time to seriously your lengthy reply.  Just for fun, why not watch the video starting at 12:24 which shows the confusion coming from NASA regarding stars.  Can you make sense of it?  Who is lying?  Who is telling the truth?  Why?
-4
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior You wouldn't have taken the time to do anything. You've already proved that on numerous comments on other threads. You'd just have endlessly repeated the same tired old arguments (usually ones other posters had already debunked) and changed the subject whenever I made a point you couldn't answer (which, coincidentally, is exactly what you've done with your reply here).

Your problem is that you don't want to know the truth. The fantasy is so much more entertaining.

Another quote for you to ignore. Another fact for you to dodge. "The nuclear reactors produce the same radiation as produced in space." That's a lie. Do you understand what I'm saying here? THE INFORMATION GIVEN AS FACTS IN THIS DOCUMENTARY ARE LIES. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU IN THE HOPE YOU WON'T CHECK WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

As for the stuff about the stars, I'll just point you in the direction of this subtitle. "The view of the stars would be the same in Apollo [ie on the moon] and the ISS."

I'll let you go away and think about that. Do some googling and see if that's correct. Or, you know, just stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALALA!!!!!! until the nasty facts go away.

Now, are you going to answer my points or just keep evading the issue because you don't have any answers? One chance, then I'm out.

[Just very briefly, you might want to google "professor" James McCanney, who features in this video as well. Just to get you started, he isn't a professor, and he believes that the sun is negatively charged (proved wrong), that there is no ice in comets (proved wrong), that comets are negatively charged (proved wrong), that Venus was a comet that is now tidally locked with the Earth (not only so wrong it's laughable but also proof that he doesn't know what 'tidally locked' means) and that the earth is going to be destroyed by a mysterious Planet X.]
4
Reply
Male 5,475
DrCribbens oh i take the time to do a lot, but when people start getting assertive like you have been, such as you asserting i don't want to know the truth when i very much do, i tend to tune them out as they waste time (as you have many times trying to assert your position).  The problem is that the evidence against the moon landings is quite reasonable enough to lead someone to question it, but i understand hearing considering that your "LALALA" moment, even though you yourself have never left earth nor set foot on the moon.
-3
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior See? You don't have any answers to any of the points I've raised. 

Do you want to discuss the video you posted? Are you going to look into any of the points I've suggested you research? Don't want to? Worried you might find something that doesn't reinforce your misinformed view? Yeah, I thought so.
4
Reply
Male 5,475
DrCribbens actually it seems you missed the point where you're wasting time, you have assumptions, and are acting on them, but as previously explainedin our correspondence, they are wrong.
-4
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior Yes, I am making assumptions. Given that you've posted a video claiming the moon landing was a hoax and that your comment on the video asks what NASA are hiding, I've assumed that you believe the moon landing was a hoax. Given that the video is full of basic errors and lies I'm assuming that either you haven't bothered looking into any of its claims or that, worse, you have researched it, found the truth and then ignored it. As you are unable to enter into any discussion of the video and have no answers to any of my points I assume that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Feel free to actually answer my points in previous posts to prove me wrong. Which you won't. Because you can't. Because any evidence that the moon landing was faked falls over as soon as you spend more than a couple of minutes thinking about it.

So one more chance. I'm willing, if you are, to go through the video and discuss each of the major claims it makes. (It makes hundreds of minor claims as well, but I'd rather not spend the rest of my life in this thread).

The first major claim it makes is that companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Apollo, that some of the firms involved also made military equipment, that most of the money was spent on earth and not in space and that models were made.

All of this is true. However, let's take a moment to have a think about these claims.

* Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent. Very true. Can't dispute that. However, are you aware of the huge boost the Apollo program gave to the American economy? It has been estimated that for every $1 spent on Apollo, $7 went back into the US economy.

* Some of the firms involved also made military equipment. Yep. Obviously. So?

* Most of the money was spent on the earth. This one made me laugh. Where else would it be spent?

* Models were made. Yes they were. This is when you might want to talk about assumptions. Every single moment of the Apollo shot was simulated on earth. Every single possible outcome was rehearsed over and over and over again. Enter Marcus Allen, billed as 'photographer and image analyst'. Just so we're clear, Mr Allen was a photographer 50 years ago. He isn't an image analyst. He's the publisher of an 'alternative news' magazine. Look him up. I can find nowhere other than this video where he claims to be an image analyst. As an aside, this means that the first two people I see in the video both use questionable credentials. Does that ring any alarm bells for you? [I have no idea whether this is the fault of the video makers or the people involved, but Marcus Allen isn't an expert in image analysis and James McCanney isn't a professor.]

Anyway, the first thing he says is 'Obviously if you're going to somewhere that nobody has been before, you're going to need a simulator which recreates that environment as closely as you can. If you're going to the moon, you recreate the surface of the moon.' That is very true.

Do you doubt the need for realistic simulations?

As the video goes on it becomes clear that this isn't even something that the conspiracy theorists can use as evidence of a fake moon landing. Listen to the language they use.

"The images which we're told show a camera pointing out the window of the lunar module... could well have been filmed previously using these... models?"
"That's right. It could well be that what we're looking at are films of realistic models. We have no means of knowing if they were actually taken on the lunar surface."
[my emphasis]

In other words, when you look at the claim that models were used to fake the footage (by the way, the images that he points at in the book were published by NASA - if they were going to fake this, why would they publish the evidence for everyone to see?) the best that the conspiracy theorists can say is 'well, it's possible but I have no idea.'

I look forward to your relevant and incisive comments on what I have raised here so that we can move on to the next bit of the video.
2
Reply
Male 4,952
DrCribbens


It's phenomenal how thorough and patient you are in your critiques. You've made a more careful study of this video than Monk has himself.
2
Reply
Female 407
squrlz4ever Thank you. For all the good it did I might as well just have posted pictures of lolcats. My patience is now exhausted. Monkwarrior is a troll.
1
Reply
Male 4,952
DrCribbens You're welcome. Your efforts were not fruitless because they reveal a good deal about your debate partner here.

I've come to the conclusion that Monk is either (A) a troll or (B) mentally ill. I mention B because I see elements of delusions of grandeur, obsession, religious fervor, and irrational thinking in his comments. Option A is still a contender because he has been caught in the past using two sock-puppet accounts (GuySmiley and 747Pilot). (He maintains his innocence but the admin who found him out was tracking ISPs, so I trust the admin's judgment.) Perhaps he's both A and B.

I'm glad you're a part of the IAB community. We need rational, educated people on here who are willing to push back against nonsense. Trolls and conspiracy theorists tend to attract more trolls and conspiracy theorists, and I really don't want to see IAB go down that path.
1
Reply
Female 407
squrlz4ever Sorry, been offline for couple of days. I think that if everyone on the interwebs who held bizarre views was mentally ill I'd be buying shares in straitjacket manufacturers. 

That said, I'd be interested in his views on 9/11, the holocaust, the illuminati and whether world leaders are actually 8-foot lizards. I'd ask him but his answer would be incomprehensible.

I've said before, the internet is a very powerful tool in the hands of people with bizarre views who rely on gullibility and an inability to research to spread them to far wider audiences than they've ever been able to in the past. 
2
Reply
Male 4,952
DrCribbens That it is. It's been a blessing and a curse.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
DrCribbens more lengthy reply starting off with an assumption that the moon was claimed a hoax?  Perhaps you should read the OP again, because it's asking a question.  I don't assume the moon landing is a hoax, but evidence points to the possibility the achievement was never made, which is growing stronger as the years pass without a repeat of the achievement.  I really don't have time to deal with your assumptions that you have of what i think, which continue to be shown wrong, you really shouldn't waste your time with assumptions.  Also I have gone over all of the available evidence every which way for 20 years in discussions and research,  and further discussion is going to prove a waste of time, because i've seen all the evidence, and more evidence is required.  *New* evidence is required, because the evidence available now points to questions about the achievements, but i fully understand that you think it doesn't.
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior If new evidence is required (which it isn't), why make posts that just rehash what's been said over and over again?  
Why aren't you willing to discuss your posts? If further discussion is going to be a waste of time, why make posts like this?

Why make posts which contain proven inaccuracies?

And the question in the OP, by the way, isn't 'are they hiding something?'. It's 'what are they hiding?' which clearly assumes that they're hiding something. That's not me making an assumption, that's language.
2
Reply
Male 5,475
DrCribbens Because people, such as yourself, assert new evidence isn't required, since they have chosen to ignore paying attention to evidence that raises question.  Usually this is done because they are afraid to go against the preached propaganda foisted on them by the media.  Often, as their media peached it to them without suffucient evidence, they proceed to preach it at others with the same errors of reasoning as you are doing here.  

To clarify it again, the assumptions you have relied on, which you have made apparent through a number of our correspondences, seems to be one you want to hold to for the reasons noted above.  You have made it very clear to me, that you don't want to let go of your assumptions, which will lead to a waste of time.

The bottom line is that while there is 'enough' information for those who have accepted what the media preaches as fact, like yourself.  There are those who have gone to examine the evidence of that preached fact, and found that evidence is lacking.

Yes, you can assert there is enough evidence, for yourself.  I get that you have chosen that route.  But if you want to ignore that others are finding evidence that leads them to question the achievement, stating that they are what your preached propaganda tells you to judge them as, then it's you who are in the wrong, not them.
-1
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior It's amazing that you can post something as heavily reliant on evidence as that post without ever being able or willing to actually discuss any. 

I've given you every opportunity to actually discuss in an adult manner the evidence that you have presented and every single time, on other threads as well as this one, you have refused to do so. Instead, on every occasion, you post meaningless posts like the one above. 

You accuse me of being prey to propaganda preached by the media when I have repeatedly made posts which are backed by scientific evidence. You accuse me of wanting to hold onto assumptions when I have given you numerous opportunities to explain your stance and debate it with me.

If I make assumptions it's only because you have never engaged in the discussion enough to enable me to do anything else.

Your argument is that I accept whatever the media preaches as fact. I have proved to you and anyone else reading these posts that I have come to my decisions via the analysis of the science. I have quoted the science to you on a number of occasions. I have shown you where your evidence is lacking. At no point have you been able to defend the holes in your evidence. Instead, you have repeatedly changed the subject and bleated on about 'assumptions'. 

In other words, I have shown that out of the two of us, I'm not the one just swallowing the facts that are preached to me without any sort of independent analysis. You have shown that it's in fact you who are doing that by simply believing whatever the conspiracy theorists tell you without any attempt to find out the facts for yourself. This very post proves that. I've shown you where the video is wrong, in a number of places, within the first few minutes. You criticise me for doing that but you're unable to tell me why I'm wrong. You're just believing what they preach to you.

Well done. You are a troll. As a troll, your opinions are meaningless. Feel free to reply, but I won't be bothered reading it. There'll be no point, because going on previous experience it will be irrelevant to the discussion.
3
Reply
Male 5,475
DrCribbens Well done, you have projected on me everything you are guilty of.  Finally you can see where i was several days ago with you, meaning that there is no point in continuing with you, as your assumptions make for a poor and tedious discussion.

Again, the bottom line is more evidence is needed.  If you can't accept that some people need more evidence, you're not going to convince them by judging them based on your assumptions.
-2
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior As usual, when presented with something that debunks your beliefs, you refuse to answer. Before you try and turn this around, I've answered your questions before, while you just continue to post more "facts" from conspiracy theory websites, and ignore me when I prove your "facts" wrong.
2
Reply
Male 5,475
monkwarrior actually, as usual you continue to think your flawed western media delusion-infused way of thinking is rational.  Rest assured, it is not.  It must be terrifying for you to know that the world is starting to see through the lies of your own nation.
-1
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior And yet, even when the information I give you has absolutely NOTHING to do with any media of any kind, you still ignore it. As you do everything that anyone posts, from any source, that proves your lies to be the lies that they are. Tinfoil hats on, everyone!
2
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat New evidence is needed in regards to this issue, IMHO.  BTW your employment of fallacies sinks you constantly.
-1
Reply
Male 3,447
DrCribbens Yep, this site I linked above debunks the radiation statement.

"In fact, the Van Allen radiation belts extend from about 600 miles up to more than 40,000 miles from Earth with the region of highest radiation intensity being between around 2,000 miles and 12,000 miles above Earth. The astronauts exposure to those radiation belts is brief (less than 4 hours total - they begin their time in this region while traveling at 25,000 MPH! And they pass through it twice, once outbound, and again on their return. They spend less than an hour in the densest part of the belt.) and they are well protected in their spacecraft. Here is a link to a webpage that describes the radiation environment and physiological effects on the Apollo astronauts." 

But what does this guy know, he is only a scientist and Senior Research Specialist of Lunar and Planetary Lab at The University of Arizona...


4
Reply
Female 407
kalron27 All true, and all about to be ignored by Monkwarrior. Also note that the radiation in the Van Allen belts has got nothing to do with X-rays or gamma rays as this video incorrectly claims. The Van Allen belts are composed of charged particles, which are a completely different thing and, as you point out, the astronauts were shielded from charged particle radiation by the materials in the skin of the spacecraft. The idea that they needed something like lead shielding is completely incorrect.
4
Reply
Male 3,447
DrCribbens grasping at straws comes to mind...
2
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 Obvously, as previously mentioned, the author of your link can't explain the part of the video starting at 12:24 which shows the confusion coming from NASA in relation to what is seen in space when looked into the deep dark void of space.

Perhaps you can email your unlikely hero to have them provide you with a suitible answer?
-4
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior What Troll?  I can't hear you over the vortex swirling around you.

Like I said, if you have questions, email the author yourself Troll-Blossom.  I already have the answers I need, you on the other hand need help...
3
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 Oh yes, more fallacies and ad-hominems, that show your inability to rationally discuss points and facts that raise questions about what you want to assert is true.

Continue ignoring that your page you tried to use as an all-round refutation works, when it doesn't answer specific questions regarding conflicting reports about stars.  I mean, if you want to put your fingers in your ears saying "la-la-la-la", it's completely your choice, but there's no need to become a juvenile and emotional troll about it, running around with your head cut off spouting your errors in reasoning.
-5
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior

You ain't even reading the site and it's references are you?  It explains everything about the moon landing.  If you want to keep believing made up bullshit then so be it...but in the end...

Ad-hominem This Bitch




3
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 i obvously read the portion regarding stars, as it's not mentioning anything about stars being seen or not seen from the ISS, your page is about the moon.  Try to get on board by watching the video starting at 12:24.  And no, i don't get mad.  i know how to take on trolls.
-5
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior again, email the author.  I'm not the scientist and you wouldn't listen to me anyway.  The site hasn't been updated since 2011 but I'm sure if you approach him he will be happy to look into your claim and debunk it with science for you.  I'm not helping you any more...you are beyond it

Oh wait...maybe I will continue to help you, I'm feeling generous today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Short-exposure photo of the International Space Station (ISS) taken from Space Shuttle Atlantis in February 2008 – one of many photos taken in space where no stars are visible

Long-exposure photo taken from the Moon's surface by Apollo 16 astronauts using the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph. It shows the Earth with the correct background of stars  

The answer to your question is the difference between short and long exposure in photography, and the technology available to the Apollo crew at the time.  
4
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 That's fair enough, but doesn't explain why people looking with their own eyes (not through cameras etc) are reporting inconstancies, as shown starting at 12:24 in the video.  Are you saying the NASA employees may have upgraded their eyes to give themselves the equivalent of short or long exposure, which would account for the inconsistencies in the reports of stars?  Each one had a different variation of exposure installed so thats why they might see stars or not?
-4
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Is this the only thing you have left to cling to now? How very sad...
1
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat i think it's sad that you would think that, as it shows your tendency to commit fallacies.  There is plenty of evidence out there to raise question, that you want to ignore.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Yes, this "evidence" certainly does raise questions. Then, these questions are answered, over, and over, and over. But you, and your ilk, are unable to see the answers, because your tinfoil hats have slipped down over your eyes. What I was referring to as "sad" was you stubbornly refusing to see the answers that keep being thrust in front of your face over, and over, and over, and continuing to ask the same question that has been answered over, and over, and over. At least you are consistent...
1
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat Unfortunately these questions have not been answered satisfactorily.  I understand you feel they have, but no, people who are asking questions (who btw, are far from the strawmen or ad-hominems you are trying to paint out of the fragility of your world view), are still looking for concrete answers.  The evidence we have is in question, NEW evidence is required, AKA a return to the moon.  You act like i haven't been studying this in great detail for over 20 years.  Understand when you put forth your 'answers' and it seems that way, it's only because i've heard them over and over and over.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior Listen to this whole interview, specifically the part about "glare of the sun on the visor" part.  They didn't have "with their own eyes" vision from their perspective like modern astronauts on the ISS.  This includes the view ports from the Apollo spacecraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yxay9gevis

He also mentions that some of the Apollo astronauts claimed to see planets but he did not see any.  This backs up the statement from the ISS interview.

That entire video you linked is heavily edited to confuse the actual facts.
3
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 the point is that there is inconsistencies in the evidence which can lead people to question the achievement.
-3
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior There are no inconsistencies in evidence in the case you pointed out at 12:24...only inconsistencies in perspective, which includes falsities and obscuras that prevent the naked eye from seeing things naturally from behind the rudimentary equipment available to the Apollo astronauts vs modern technology of ISS astronauts.  The seeing stars is an example of this.  

And again, the video you present is so heavily edited to bend the truth you can almost taste it.
3
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 Yes you have made your opinion known regarding the cut, which has been taken from a number of sources. In case you wanted the clip alone regarding the stars ere is the clip alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E

Another thing i noticed is your page didn't even touch on the sounds that could be heard on the moon, but which you can see in the video here on I-A-B @ 18:50.  Please watch that, and try to explain how sound of hammering travelled on the moon in a vaccume. Keep in mind, if you want to say it travelled through the space suit, you have to also explain why the ISS people tapping claim to hear nothing.
-4
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior Nope...that whole series of statement about the "website" that was taken down is again taken out of context.  The site says "even when striking the hammer there was no sound", which is correct...however what you are hearing is the vibrations traveling through the suit and into the mic through an air filled environment.  They are using a pointless loss of a website to confuse you and convince you of a non-existent conspiracy. 

Look at this photo...see all of the metal that is part of the glove...do you understand how this can create a vibration within the suit that can be picked up by a mic?



Here is an experiment for you to try.  Put on noise canceling headset or ear phones, especially construction grade equipment.  Bang a hammer on something metal and see what your ears pick up.

And before you say...but but ISS suits don't pick that up...let me once again say...technologies between the generations are not equal.  They are built with completely different materials, including tools.
4
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 nice try, but not convincing.

Here's why.  On nasa's own website they had a 'for kids section' that stated:

"Sound needs something to travel through to get from one place to another. On the Moon, since there is no air, sound cannot travel above the surface. So, there are no sounds on the surface of the Moon. When the Apollo astronauts were out on the Moon's surface, they could only talk to each other, and to mission control, by using the radios in their air filled helmets. Even when the astronaut in the photo to the right, hit a metal tube into the ground with a hammer, no sound was made."

source:
internet archives (that was taken down when this question about sounds started flaring up)


Also i find it highly doubtful the clear sound would be as clear as it was after the vibration making all of those energy transformations.  Not to mention the sound that the mike can pick up but the wearer of the mike can't hear.   

last though: Perhaps they could replicate the experiment in a vaccume chamber.
-4
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Ever seen a "skull" microphone? One earpiece inserted into an ear canal, nothing else. It picks up the human voice quite clearly, despite not having a microphone anywhere near the mouth. How? Vibrations set up in the skull. This is a very well-known and well-understood phenomenon. Next?
2
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat really? so everyone was deaf in their other ear?
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior What? Is that supposed to make sense? What mention has been made to "their other ear" before now? Where is the context for that asinine question?
2
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat Well you're pulling situations, untested, out of the air.   Perhaps you could replicate the experiment in a vacuum chamber?
0
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior Nice try editing your original comment, but you didn't listen to anything I said.  Your quote is correct, no sound was made on the surface of the Moon, but sound was generated through vibrations within the suit that were picked up by the mic within the same air filled environment.

Again, that statement is taken out of context and used to distort the actual information.
3
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 i was busy.. saving each thought fyi
-3
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior That's it...I'm out...enjoy either your Troll cookie for the day, or the paranoid delusions you are exhibiting.
 


I'll now redirect you to jaysingrimm links above...
3
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 I expected nothing less from your trolling.
-4
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior  Nowhere does it mention not being able to see the stars from space. It says that you can't see the stars on the moon while it is facing our sun.  Again, this is an edited mess of misconstrued statements.  And again, it is not taking into account the differences in technology.  You did not listen to Neil Armstrong's full statement.  He actually states that other Apollo astronauts saw planets, which confirms the statement in the interview with the ISS astronauts.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 i've heard that, again there are inconsistencies.  But enough about the stars, what about the sounds?
-3
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior  "you can see the stars pretty much all of the time".

That statement is taken out of context and does not apply to what the original lunar astronauts were able to experience.  By "pretty much all of the time" does not include landing on the sun side of the moon, nor does is it an example of what the Apollo astronauts could view from their craft, they are entirely different experiences through the view portals available between the technologies.

Apollo space craft ≠ ISS 
1
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 Again, it's still inconsistent, and someone somewhere is lying.  We have people from ISS repeating what the moon landers said "you can't see any stars, just blackness"  which is hard to believe someone saying if they were the ISS which is supposedly orbiting the earth, seing night and day constantly.  Then we have other people from ISS saying "you can see stars all the time".  

If you aren't asking questions but trying to assert facts to solidify your world-view in face of these inconsistencies, there's clearly something wrong with your reasoning.
-3
Reply
Male 569
5
Reply
Male 1,018
Is this post just in case anyone was in danger of taking you seriously? Problem solved!
5
Reply
Male 3,447
 The Apollo 11 landing site, photographed by the LRO in orbit around the moon.

4
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 Of course, it's not like NASA's hand in the LRO wouldn't be used to manipulate a fact to uphold previous NASA claims, if indeed it wasn't true and they didn't go, and needed to continue a lie..
-5
Reply
Male 74
kalron27 But you see, this is part of the mountain of evidence FOR it being real. Made by people an entire generation or two after everyone involved in the moon landing had left NASA. So obviously after several generations of people not connected to the "fake" landing would still wish to continue to fake everything...  for some reason...  with every single one happy to work their asses off to go through school, educate the shit out of themselves to be able to work for NASA, wanting to learn more about the universe and expand humanities knowledge of the cosmos only to then turn around and decide it is better to lie to everyone in a somehow permanent house of cards of lies...
4
Reply
Male 1,798
PosisDas Not to mention the pictures taken by other countries, who would be better served by proving the US moon landing a hoax, rather than showing pictures that prove it.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
PosisDas or thinking that's the case when only a handful of people have ever gone to space.

Perehaps you can answer the question for us once and for all.  In space do you see stars?  As the video shows there are many questions.  Most astronauts say "there are no stars, just the black velvetness of space", yet we see many pictures of stars in space.  Some astronauts say "yes we can see stars" question:  Why the confusion?
-2
Reply
Male 74
monkwarrior There is no confusion - it's like being confused why we can't see stars during the day but we can at night. The stars are all relatively dim compared to the sun. People can tend to lose their dark vision adaption very quickly so when astronauts are in the sun (be in on the moon or orbiting the day side of earth), everything is so bright that the dim stars cannot be seen. But when they are in the shadow of earth and allow their vision to adapt, they can see the stars. Just like how you can not see most stars during the day when the sun outshines everything but you can at night - and at night, if you allow your eyes to adapt, you can see a LOT of stars. 
4
Reply
Male 941
PosisDas The posted video does a good job of showing that there is a contradiction between astronauts and scientists of today verses those of the past.  Either one or the other is wrong, because what they say contradicts the others.  When you have absolute contradictions like this, obviously someone is either wrong or lying.  But these guys are the witnesses to their own claims.  They can't all be right.  Someone is either lying about the stars or really didn't know because they didn't see it themselves.
-2
Reply
Male 5,475
PosisDas Oh there is clearly some confusion.  It's like you didn't even watch that part of the video starting at 12:24 which shows the confusion coming from NASA.  Please, take your time, watch it.  Explain it.  Rather than just not watch it, pull out some assertion and think your excuse covers the confusion you didn't even see.
-2
Reply
Male 3,410
i think bears are catholic and the pope shits in the woods... im filming a documentary
5
Reply
Male 3,447
rumham I'm waiting to see it...it better show details!
2
Reply
Male 3,410
kalron27 full frontal nudity bro
2
Reply
Male 3,447
It's too early for this shit...
4
Reply
Male 4,952
kalron27 My feelings exactly.
4
Reply
Male 5,475
squrlz4ever never to early to explore the truth
-4
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior When have you ever been even remotely associated with the truth?

If you're going to spout bullshit, at least try to be entertaining, so far all you've accomplished tedious annoyance.

4
Reply
Male 5,475
megrendel i seek truth continually.  Acting ignorant like you did there shows that you have put limits on your understanding, which i refuse to put on my own.  You'd be better to say nothing then act ridiculous about it, and then get pointed out for being ridiculous.
-4
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior  i seek truth continually.

I have no idea what you think you're seeking, but it's rather obvious to 99% of IAB that it does not resemble reality. 

4
Reply
Male 5,475
megrendel continuing to express your limits of understanding by advertising your ad-hominem won't let you win any battles.  When you can back up that i don't seek truths continually with facts please feel free to add to the conversation.  IF however, you want to simply continue being ridiculous over people who still question, then it's an arrogance on your part you'll need to deal with if you don't know how to teach and only preach.
-5
Reply
13
monkwarrior I find it amusing that you use "ad hominem" as an ad hominem attack against people you disagree with. Well done. 
5
Reply
Male 5,475
hoitymctoitpants that itself is an ad-hominem, well done.  Perhaps though, it may have been wiser to respond to the argument: " never to early to explore the truth " ? 

Welcome to I-A.B btw, and enjoy your stay.
-3
Reply
13
monkwarrior It's only ad hominem if I'm using it to render your argument invalid, which I didn't! Hooray!
3
Reply
Male 5,475
hoitymctoitpants so you have no response to the argument then, thanks.
-2
Reply
Male 3,447
hoitymctoitpants Is this what an "Ad Hominem used as an Ad Hominem Attack against people you disagree with" looks like? :)

3
Reply
Male 215
kalron27 Rich Evans FTW!! I was going to bypass this dumpster fire of a submission, but your RLM gif deserves props. Well done, amigo.
5
Reply
Male 3,447
AgamemnonTheGreat Nothing can defeat the Rich Evans...nothing...
2
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior When you can back up that i don't seek truths continually with facts please feel free to add to the conversation.

See: The Video you Posted.  That single fact backs up that you don't seek truths. 
5
Reply
Male 5,475
megrendel actually you're simply trying to force your ad-hominem now.  It failed, wake up and bite your tounge for once.
-6
Reply
Male 8,560
5
Reply
Male 5,475
megrendel oh, it's quite clear i do know.  But it's quite clear that you have nothing, with what, your 4th failed post now due to a fallacy?
-4
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior Normally, when faced with your level of ignorance and outright stupidity, I'd ask 'What color is the sky in your world?'

But, in your case, I really don't give a shit.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
megrendel Obviously you do care enough to make a further fallacy.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
megrendel and yet pot is the devil and causes mental issues...
3
Reply
Male 3,410
kalron27 monkwarriors family was killed by a gravity bong. hence his hatred
3
Reply
Male 3,447
rumham To be honest...I've almost died by gravity bong.

Milk Jug + Water Bucket + Tin Foil + Pot = Coughing until Puking then Super High Me!
1
Reply
Male 3,410
kalron27 i prefer the old school 3 liter soda bottle
2
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 let me guess, you think i think that is the bottom line on pot?  Wouldn't surprise me one single bit if you need to make that falsehood up.
-5
Reply
Male 3,447
monkwarrior ...so WTF does that mean troll?  

" But make no mistake, drug abuse can, has, and will destroy minds and lives.  The problem with marijuana is that it happens so slowly its users hardly notice until it's too late. "

- monkwarrior 16 hours ago

I'd say you have reached your conclusion on the subject.
4
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 it doesn't mean what you implied. IF you can't see that, the problem is you are too assumptive.  It's a bad combo dude, assumptious and fallacious.
-6
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Really? Then why does it seem that way to pretty much everyone? Who is defending you? Claiming that "that's not what I meant", when it clearly is, doesn't help your cause. Also, I guess that it hasn't been "too late" for me for around 25 years now. How long does it supposedly take?
3
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat because it's clearly not, as you are assuming it is due to assumptions and fallacies.  So yes, if you have been assuming for around 25 years now, it's probably going to be hard for you to move back from assuming and see the flaw in assuming.
-1
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Was that supposed to make sense?
1
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat obviously not to you.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
2
Reply
Male 5,475
kalron27 Yes i know that's how i seems to trolls.  Precise, focused, and efficient.  But you'll never make me mad.
-5
Reply
Male 941
And the bleating begins.  How people can ignore all of the evidence against the moon landing is beyond my understanding.  I used to believe that which was told to me, then I looked into it.  But the evidence really does suggest it was, and continues to be, a hoax, at least in my mind.  I could, of course, be wrong, but I am not convince. 
-4
Reply
Male 8,560
cjeffblanchr How people can ignore all of the evidence against the moon landing..

It's rather easy to ignore idiots spouting bullshit.  Unfortunately they're just incapable of educating themselves. 

As you said, your 'evidence' is only in your mind and bears no relationship to reality.
6
Reply
Male 9,769
megrendel It's funny, but that is almost exactly what I would say to you regarding your stance on AGW.
5
Reply
Male 941
megrendel What exactly is your idea of "educating" themselves?
-2
Reply
Male 8,560
cjeffblanchr Oh, I don't know.  Study the math behind the moon missions.  Study up on radiation to know that the hoaxers claims concerning the Van Allen belt are bullshit.  Study the very basics of photography to learn why stars are not present in the sky in some photos, why the shadows act as they do, how bright areas can occlude the crosshairs, study on momentum to realize why the flag moved as it did.

Most of the evidence that prove the moon landings is easily worked out by anyone with a basic education in rudimentary STEM classes. 

All of the evidence that 'prove' the moon landings were fake can only be worked out by really stupid people.

You know...facts and shit. 
7
Reply
Male 3,410
cjeffblanchr your jeff to his mutt
5
Reply
Male 5,475
rumham interesting how you use ad-hominems in the face of your complete and catastrophic failure to mount a sound defense to sensible reasoning.
-6
Reply
Male 941
monkwarrior I'm starting to think this is the norm around here.
-2
Reply
Male 5,475
cjeffblanchr yes, you'll find some opinionated people who don't like questioning what they have been told is a fact, and expect you to agree with it without question too.  But don't let it bother you, as you've posted some good points surrounding this already.
-4
Reply
Male 941
monkwarrior Well, I love discussion and I love talking about a variety of topics with people who have diverse opinions.  I won't let it get me.
-2
Reply
Male 3,410
cjeffblanchr you are such a wordsmith and a captain of conversational wit
2
Reply
Male 4,952
rumham LOL! Nailed it.

5
Reply
Male 5,475
squrlz4ever interesting how you would support an ad-hominems in the face of your complete and catastrophic failure to mount a sound defense to sensible reasoning.
-7
Reply
Male 4,952
monkwarrior Yeah, not getting sucked down your rabbit hole today, Monk. I've got better things to do.
6
Reply
Male 5,475
squrlz4ever continuing it doesn't give you the upper hand, fyi.
-5
Reply
Male 3,410
monkwarrior im ad homining and ad homing missle to my ad homined homogenized. ad nausuem- ad nau·se·am
ad ˈnôzēəm/
adverb

  1. referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresom
3
Reply
Male 5,475
rumham don't repeat yourself silly, you can do it: ad-hominem
-2
Reply
Male 3,410
monkwarrior zing.  covfefe
3
Reply
Male 5,475
rumham too bad
-2
Reply
Male 5,475
cjeffblanchr Exactly where i stand.  Personally i feel the achievement needs to be done again, this time with modern earth-based tracking, and live-streamed at the very least, and to establish a moon base so everyone can see its lights from earth without question 
-5
Reply
Male 941
monkwarrior Agreed.  Of course as I'm certain you are aware, NASA, by their own admission, would have difficulty achieving this today.  So far what I've seen in this post--with a couple exceptions (like Kalron27's link below)--is that the evidence FOR the moon landing is assertions that those who don't believe are idiots and stupid memes that show people's inability to think outside of what they're spoon fed.  

To others: As far as there being evidence for the moon landing--of course there is.  The nature of a hoax is that those pulling it off create scenarios that mimic reality to try to fool people.  Its when evidence is presented that contradicts the story that people start questioning the claims.  There is evidence for nearly anything, as well as evidence against it.  When claims are made, we have to examine the evidence to make the best call, to establish what we believe.  The problem is that too many people go into it with a pre-established viewpoint for whatever reason, then when they see a piece of evidence that seems to support that viewpoint they claps onto it and claim that it is now proven and ignore the contradictory evidence.  People do this of course on both sides of any issue.  I prefer to discuss things with those who can be open minded.  I don't care if you agree with me.  Why not discuss it, even if you think it is silly?  Oh, is it because you think it is so ridiculous that you shouldn't waste any time on it?  Well, that's fine.  But just dropping insults as so many of you do, does absolutely nothing to help you cause. 

Let's suppose that your view on the moon landing is absolutely correct for a moment.  What do you really want when you see people question it--to educate them?  Then do so by discussing it.  Maybe what you want is for everyone to conform to the popular belief?  Then discuss it.  Or, if you really don't have the time, just ignore it.  But coming into discussions just to call people stupid really does nothing but make you look like a mindless douche.
-4
Reply
Male 3,410
cjeffblanchr so many words no one will read. i can boil it down.. babbabababbababab =babababab SHEEPLE, [email protected]! false narratives ad hominememmememes
2
Reply
Male 941
rumham What a brilliant argument you have made!
0
Reply
Male 941
kalron27 Okay, I read through a fair portion of that site.  First, let me say that I appreciate that you at least linked some information.  Honestly, there's not a lot there that I haven't read in one form or another before.  Still, of course the arguments for the lunar landing hold some water.  I do not, nor have I ever, disagreed that there is evidence for it.  My only claim is that there seems to me to be enough evidence against it to make me wonder.  In the past I've never really been much of a conspiracy guy.  I used to accept everything at face value, because honestly, why would they lie?  Additionally, I'd consider how difficult it might be to orchestrate such a hoax and conclude that it was so unlikely that someone wouldn't have leaked the truth that what we're being told must be the truth.

Yet over the years I guess I've changed my viewpoint on a lot of things.  For one, I no longer doubt the depths of corruption that people will go to in order to deceive others.  I think politics are a perfect example of this, and no matter which side one takes in this area, we see the corruption (usually on the opposite side).  But I think that the problem is that we adhere to preconceived ideas and we see those that oppose them as utterly wrong, even corrupt.  But also through my experiences I have learned that usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  I think this applies to politics, the moon landing, climate change, and just about everything else that people argue about.  

It is for this that I keep an open mind and am willing to see all of the arguments on either side of an issue.  I think there is validity to most claims--at least enough to consider them.  None of us is perfect or knows the absolute truth.  I have seen so many people ruled by popular opinion and just close themselves off to any discussion, and honestly I find it to be sad.  Of course it is okay for people to have their opinions and beliefs, but too many people make the claim that what they believe is absolute truth and close themselves off from everything else.  When they do this, they start thinking that other people who disagree with them must be stupid.  This is arrogance at its finest, and it is not productive to the advancement of thought.
-3
Reply
Male 5,475
cjeffblanchr i am with you 100% on that
-6
Reply
Male 5,475
cjeffblanchr well put
-6
Reply
Male 3,447
cjeffblanchr

I'm glad you took the time to look over that site.  This is the one I was actually looking for originally:

https://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

You can even email him and he will reply with any answers to questions you may have.  It's the site I used to convince someone who was a "faker" believer over a decade ago.  He was convinced of the Van Allen Belt portion of the conspiracy theory but this site quickly debunked it.  He personally emailed the site author to thank him, as did I.  We both got prompt responses and gratitude.

"
 About 20 miles about [sic] the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

Debunking the statement: In fact, the Van Allen radiation belts extend from about 600 miles up to more than 40,000 miles from Earth with the region of highest radiation intensity being between around 2,000 miles and 12,000 miles above Earth. The astronauts exposure to those radiation belts is brief (less than 4 hours total - they begin their time in this region while traveling at 25,000 MPH! And they pass through it twice, once outbound, and again on their return. They spend less than an hour in the densest part of the belt.) and they are well protected in their spacecraft. Here is a link to a webpage that describes the radiation environment and physiological effects on the Apollo astronauts."


I'm all for the "Think for Yourself...Question Authority" approach to life, but there are some subjects that are just too silly to question.  The Moon Landing is one of our greatest achievements in human history and people gave their lives to reach that goal.  To question it is a disservice to all.
4
Reply
Male 941
kalron27 As I understand it, the issue with the Van Allen Radiation belt isn't whether or not the astronauts could have passed through it so much as why it is that in a somewhat recent video put out by NASA they seemed to be saying that they didn't know how they would get through it safely on their way to Mars.  It was presented as a challenge that they still had to overcome, yet somehow they had overcome it on the way to the moon.
-1
Reply
56
cjeffblanchr Can you link to this video?  I am sure that they are not talking about the Van Allen belts.  Instead they are talking about cosmic radiation, of which the Apollo astronauts also received a good (but not fatal) dose.  I predict you can't produce a NASA video saying that, and will ignore me.

You know about solar flares, right?  The astronauts also knew that they had no defense if one of those happened to hit the earth-moon system while they were outside the belts--they just accepted the risk as part of the mission.  Any Mars mission would have to have a protected part of the spacecraft.
3
Reply
Male 941
stevopusser You're prediction was wrong.  Here's the video I was talking about.  This is a mirrored video on youtube.  It was the only one I found with a quick search, but it is the original.  Since its not on NASA's channel, of course I can't guarantee that it is official, but as I recall, I originally viewed it from their website.  At any rate, this is the same video I mentioned.  Is it proof of anything? Of course not.  Just one of the bits of information that make me question it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE&t=66s

This next video is also kind of interesting, starting at about 48 seconds in.  Again, its not from NASA, but from someone's channel who has put it into a video.  I'm sure the guy who posted this particular instance of this video is a hardcore truther, but that's not the point.  I've seen this segment elsewhere as well.  Point is just the lack of knowledge presented by Alan Bean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrxpqn3Gb20


0
Reply
56
cjeffblanchr The first video had the narrator simply say that problems with the radiation from the belts must be solved for the mission to succeed.  He did not say they were unsolvable, or that they had not already been solved, which they were long ago.  It's like saying that problems with mixing fuel and air must be solved for the internal combustion engine to work. So you'd say that all car engines must be faked.

Jeesh, with this quote mining and taking it out of context, how can anybody believe you people? I know that's what you have to do to produce these "unanswered questions" videos, but get a frickin' life.
1
Reply
Male 3,447
cjeffblanchr That is simple...Mars does not have a magnetic field like Earth, which extends to an extent into the Moon's orbit.  However when you extend beyond that point, and enter Space beyond Earth's orbit, the cosmic radiation, not just the Van Allen Belt, becomes an exponential factor.  Time in travel and lack of magnetic field protection will cause much more severe problems with the human body than we can protect...we are just not there yet. 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/radiation-remains-problem-any-mission-mars-180959092/
1
Reply
Male 941
kalron27 I did read through that article, so again, thanks for the link.  But I don't think that is the same thing I'm talking about, and in the video that I posted just above in response to stevopusser,
0
Reply
Male 941
kalron27 I've seen the Mythbusters episode, though I may watch it again.  It is hard for me to take them too serious though, as I used to watch the show all the time.  As enjoyable as it was, it was not infrequent that I could easily spot flaws in how they conducted some of their tests.  It didn't matter, because the show was still enjoyable to watch.  It was entertainment.  But I'm not going to follow everything they say religiously, as if they said it and "tested" it so it must be true.   I will look through the other site, though, as always with an open mind.  I'll report back to you.
-1
Reply
Male 631
cjeffblanchr The evidence only existing in your mind is one of the truer things I have seen posted about this.
5
Reply
Male 3,410
COVFEFE!
5
Reply
Male 327
When I was in high school, the internet was starting to really explode / become popular. One day, our History teacher forbid us to do a report via computer, claiming that "it was only for smart people". We all felt insulted at that time, and no one really understood her. Internet had been created by universities to spread knowledge

Still, 20+ years later, what has the internet brought us in terms of information sharing? The earth is flat, global warming is a hoax, vaccines cause autism, evolution is just a theory, no one landed on the moon, fluoride is used to sterilize people, CIA workers secretly stuffed the WTC with explosives overnight before 9/11, ISIS is the way to go for all lost Muslim souls, Trump is the way to go for all lost American souls, Brexit is the way to go for all British souls, Ancient Aliens visited the Earth...

If you believe that extra-solar civilizations have a way to browse our Internet, you'll understand why no one has contacted us yet.
6
Reply
Male 5,475
m3dm3d When an age where people use war terms like "conspiracy theorist" because they don't like specific facts, gives way to an age known as the information age, a lot of questions will no doubt be asked.  A lot of things the previous age foisted as fact will be thrown into question.  What you have seen in the almost 30 years of the internet is people coming together to discuss, ask questions, and seek, or try to find answers - free of the former age's information gatekeeper's (the mainstream media) influence.

It's arrogant, not to mention stupid, to assert many things you have been told by mainstream media is fact, especially when the information age has allowed numerous takes on what is claimed as fact.  Granted.  There's no way NASA could have known the internet would have grown to what it is when they were releasing videos of their 'achievement', but the internet has since shown there is reason for questioning the achievement.
-6
Reply
Male 4,952
monkwarrior Oh, good Lord. Some of us aren't "assert(ing) many things (we) have been told by the mainstream media." Some of us, through years of hard study, have earned degrees from excellent universities and have learned a great deal by reading these curious things you might have heard about called books.
5
Reply
Male 5,475
squrlz4ever yet you say that as if to assume i have not read any to study?
-5
Reply
Male 4,952
monkwarrior I'd be surprised if you've spent much time reading books. For one thing, your thinking lacks the maturity that comes from wide reading. For another, as you did here, you routinely overlook books as a primary source of knowledge, focusing instead on the mainstream media and internet videos. And for yet another, I've never seen you make reference to a book in any discussion you've had on here.

All of those things are pretty sure indications that you're not a reader.
4
Reply
Male 941
squrlz4ever Yeah, because everything written in books is absolute truth.  Even if it is true that Monkwarrior does not read (which is doubtful) your statement is absolute nonsense.  Reading books that conform to any idea doesn't make the idea right.  And if he or I were to quote books that disagree, you would no doubt find a way to say that its not valid because the author is stooooopid.
-3
Reply
Male 5,475
squrlz4ever yet my book shelf proves you wrong.  Also you're in no position to gauge the maturity of my thinking, if you regularly think you are a squirrel.
-5
Reply
Male 4,952
monkwarrior As stated above, Monk, I'm not getting sucked down your rabbit hole today. I've got better things to do. Have fun.
4
Reply
Male 5,475
squrlz4ever also as stated above, continuing it doesn't give you the upper hand, fyi.
-5
Reply
Male 3,447
m3dm3d nice!
2
Reply
Female 4,440
5
Reply
Male 7,943
6
Reply
Female 4,440
4
Reply
Male 7,943
melcervini You know how to drink!  Think Richanddead would like to jump in and join us for the drinks?
3
Reply
Female 4,440
normalfreak2 I can't see why not, especially around a discussion or three ;)   I'll bring the weed.
2
Reply
Male 3,447
6
Reply