So the moon landing was faked!

SexyGreyFox · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:15

doofer said:
And radio transmissions can easily be faked, I once convinced a guy in the next town I was Russian Tank Commander on a CB once.

But how do they fake a rocket taking off and 1000s upon 1000s of Ham Radio enthusiasts continually moving their aerials to pick up the signals? What technology did NASA send and land there because they didn't have to move their aerials for the duration of the landing, and then follow the 'whatever it was' back to Earth. If their aerials were fixed then you have a point but they had to be continually moved.

Glaucus · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:18

gillywibble said:
I'm not, I'm also not a sheep.

What an idiotic argument. No, off course you're not a sheep. Following a specific group blindly. Oh wait. Does that make me a white sheep and you a black sheep or what?

You won't post anything as you know it'll get ripped to shreads.
And yes many off us have read into it a lot. Not one single conspiracy idea holds any weight, not one.

kitch9 · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:19

al4x said:
were china not going to point a satellite at the moon at one point to see the lander? surely that would silence everybody

Yeah, they left stuff up there didn't they? A decent conspiracy wouldn't have left anything there....

JRS · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:20

God, is it this time again already? Thought we'd put the hoax conspiracy crapola to bed by now.

deuse · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:21

Dimple said:
But how do they fake a rocket taking off and 1000s upon 1000s of Ham Radio enthusiasts continually moving their aerials to pick up the signals? What technology did NASA send and land there because they didn't have to move their aerials for the duration of the landing, and then follow the 'whatever it was' back to Earth. If their aerials were fixed then you have a point but they had to be continually moved.

Capricorn One

Janesy B · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:22

Glaucus said:
What an idiotic argument. No, off course you're not a sheep. Following a specific group blindly. Oh wait. Does that make me a white sheep and you a black sheep or what?

You won't post anything as you know it'll get ripped to shreads.
And yes many off us have read into it a lot. Not one single conspiracy idea holds any weight, not one.

Every time a thread pops up like this you get some nutjob calling everyone sheep just because they won't believe so silly far fetched theory.

gillywibble · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:23

Glaucus said:
What an idiotic argument. No, off course you're not a sheep. Following a specific group blindly.

How is it an argument? It's a statement and as said before, in response to the inference that I am a nut job.

Not bad being a nut job who is paid to be an intelligence analyst.

Glaucus · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:24

Come on post your theories, lets see them.

Yes you are a nut job, you say other people follow blindly, but what have you done?
And what does your job have anything to do with it at all.
Where's dolph when you need him.

Deific · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:24

SlyReaper said:
So your argument boils down to a small minority of so-called experts still refusing to listen to the evidence?

And that's the crux of it, I choose to listen to expert opinion on both sides, for both the arguments, counter-arguments and counter-arguments to the counter-arguments, leading me to conclude that I cannot be sure either way.

You, however choose to listen to one side of expert opinion, whilst choosing to ignore the other. How are you better than any conspiracy theorist who listens to one side of the argument? You aren't. You're just as foolish.

doofer · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:27

Dimple said:
But how do they fake a rocket taking off and 1000s upon 1000s of Ham Radio enthusiasts continually moving their aerials to pick up the signals? What technology did NASA send and land there because they didn't have to move their aerials for the duration of the landing, and then follow the 'whatever it was' back to Earth. If their aerials were fixed then you have a point but they had to be continually moved.

Do you have Satellite TV? You know it's not a huge Studio Complex up in space right?

Or mebbe it is.....?

bertles86 · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:27

Janesy B said:
Conspiracy theorists are cute

This

JRS · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:27

Come on then hoax believers, let's get this one over with: show us the evidence that the lunar landings were faked.

Though if you start on about non-visible rocket exhaust, crosshairs behind objects on photos, parallax angles and radiation belts, I may have to hunt you down and kill you

ThundyCat · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:27

Nice hat.

deuse · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:30

ThundyCat said:
Nice hat.

Crap avatar

gillywibble · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:30

Glaucus said:
Yes you are a nut job.

Stop attacking me personally :rolleyes:

Are you in a playground?

I said I would post what I consider to be holes in the Apollo missions and I will.

Glaucus said:
And what does your job have anything to do with it at all.

Well for one thing, it shows that I can think independently and arrive at a conclusion based upon observation and research. But then you already knew that didn't you?

Glaucus · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:31

Deific said:
And that's the crux of it, I choose to listen to expert opinion on both sides, for both the arguments, counter-arguments and counter-arguments to the counter-arguments, leading me to conclude that I cannot be sure either way.

You, however choose to listen to one side of expert opinion, whilst choosing to ignore the other. How are you better than any conspiracy theorist who listens to one side of the argument? You aren't. You're just as foolish.

What "experts" are these, could they possibly experts in totally unrelated fields talking outside their expertise and as such not experts in their comments.
What evidence do these experts have, could it be none.

Just because someone calls the selfs an expert or is labeled by media or mad men as one, doesn't make it so.
Why do these "experts" also have zero evidence to back up their statements and in the case of things like starless Sky, radiation belt, computing power, just 1000% demonstrably wrong.

Glaucus · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:32

gillywibble said:
Well for one thing, it shows that I can think independently and arrive at a conclusion based upon observation and research. But then you already knew that didn't you?

Not at all, it shows you can do that within your chosen field. It does not expand to your entire life. Not one person on this planet is rational on all subjects. As shower by the steeple comment, if you were rational you would know its a stupid comment. How can one group following something be a sheep, but you following the opposite isn't.

Get on and post them then, why the stalling.

ThundyCat · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:33

deuse said:
Crap avatar

Cheers.

Deific · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:34

Glaucus said:
What "experts" are these, could they possibly experts in totally unrelated fields talking outside their expertise and as such not experts in their comments.
What evidence do these experts have, could it be none.

Just because someone calls the selfs an expert or is labeled by media or mad men as one, doesn't make it so.
Why do these "experts" also have zero evidence to back up their statements and in the case of things like starless Sky, radiation belt, computing power, just 1000% demonstrably wrong.

Without first checking for yourself or asking for reference you immediate dismiss experts on the opposing side as non-experts or frauds. Pathetic.

StriderX · 20 Jan 2013 at 17:35

Glaucus said:
Not at all, it shows you can do that within your chosen field. It does not expand to your entire life. Not one person on this planet is rational on all subjects. As shower by the steeple comment, if you were rational you would know its a stupid comment. How can one group following something be a sheep, but you following the opposite isn't.

Get on and post them then, why the stalling.

Why the aggression?

On second thought, I shall just go do something more leisurely.