I found out something about my fiance and her family and I don't know what to do...

ubersonic said:
Google would probably help you, like he says it's been proven time and time again beyond all reasonable doubt. But if you're too lazy to do your own research then a very simple explanation of is that the CGI effects needed to fake it were only made possible in the last couple of years (Nvidia actually did the first ever full simulation of it less than a year ago to demonstrate the compute power of their new GPUs) and the technology needed to fake it without CGI doesn't exist yet, thus it would have been impossible to have faked it in the 20th century.
Click to expand...

I think it would have been possible to fake it with CGI a bit earlier than nvidia's demo a couple of years ago. It would have taken a lot more time, but it would have been possible. I think it might have been possible as early as the late 90s, if you had a lot of time to get the job done.
 
Angilion said:
Strictly speaking, that only proves that there were ships sent to the moon and back on the dates given for the manned missions. Strictly speaking, it doesn't prove that there were people in the ships. It would have been possible to put receivers and transmitters in unmanned ships, transmit the signals from Earth to the ships and have the ships retransmit the signals.
Click to expand...

nah that objection is flawed as it would have been picked up had they done that... using the spaceship as a rebro wouldn't exactly have been hard for the Russians to detect
 
Angilion said:
1) You are suggesting that in the late 1960s the USA had computer technology generations ahead of anyone else, multiple orders of magnitude more powerful than anyone else, and that they had invented entirely new concepts for how to use computers...and that they never used that technology or knowledge for their own advantage except to fake moon landing videos. Also that the conspiracy of silence about it was and continues to be perfectly unbroken by any of the large number of people who would have to have been party to that knowledge (the inventors, the engineers, the programmers, etc). It would be slightly less implausible to suggest that they never used the technology for fear that it might get into the hands of the USSR, maybe, possibly, but your position requires them to have used it (for the CGI). The whole idea becomes even less believable when you consider the main point of the moon landings - to demonstrate the USA's technological superiority over the USSR. Which, obviously, could have been done far more convincingly by showing the vastly greater technological superiority of this alleged computer technology.

There is no evidence to support your position and it's extremely implausible, so in the usual usage of the word "proof" it can be reasonably be considered to be proven false.

2) They demonstrated the technology. They must therefore have spent the money necessary to invent it, develop it, build it and to carry out lunar missions (remember, the lunar ship was independently tracked by many people all over the world, including officials in the USSR).

3) The photos and videos are evidence. Since it's entirely possible that they are real and it's impossible that the videos are fake and there's no evidence that the photos are fake, it's reasonable to consider it proven (in the usual meaning of the word) that they are real.
Click to expand...


1) prove to me that they didn't have the technology.
2) that still doesn't prove people actually landed on the moon.
3) again.......you cant prove that the images/videos are fake or real

Let's all just hold hands and look at the chemtrails in the sky
 
Casdawer said:
So I've been with my fiancé for 8 years (engaged only for 4 months) and we were sitting eating dinner and for some reason that I can't remember, we were talking about the early space race.

Then out of nowhere, my soon to be Mother-In-Law proclaimed that the Moon Landing was faked. I of course, said that it's been proven time and time again that it's not and looked to my fiancé for backup and she decided to side with her mother and then soon her Dad also said he had suspicions.

I just sat there, silent, unsure if I should just pack up and leave or to try and explain this to them. I have no idea how they kept their stupidity secret for so long but now I'm at a loss what to do.

It's worth noting that the soon to be Mother-In-Law is Catholic so most likely still believes the Earth is flat... I haven't the courage to ask her.
Click to expand...

Your reaction is a bigger concern than their perceived stupidity.
 
ArnieRambo said:
1) prove to me that they didn't have the technology.
2) that still doesn't prove people actually landed on the moon.
3) again.......you cant prove that the images/videos are fake or real

Let's all just hold hands and look at the chemtrails in the sky
Click to expand...

When enough people believe the evidence, the burden of proof falls to the person trying to discredit the theory.

No one on here needs to do anything to prove the occurance of the moon landing taking place; or any other offshoot of the events such as levels of technology.

To date, no one has ever offered credible or substantiated evidence against the moon landing, which holds greater weight than the evidence already presented for its occurrence.

Simply asking questions and challenging the historic accounts in the manner many do, isn't a matter of science or history; it's a matter of philosophy.
 
Angilion said:
It would have been possible to put receivers and transmitters in unmanned ships, transmit the signals from Earth to the ships and have the ships retransmit the signals.
Click to expand...

Russia would have picked up the signals and outed the USA.


Angilion said:
I think it would have been possible to fake it with CGI a bit earlier than nvidia's demo a couple of years ago. It would have taken a lot more time, but it would have been possible. I think it might have been possible as early as the late 90s, if you had a lot of time to get the job done.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not just an issue of visual quality, it's an issue of compute/physics (light bouncing off stuff, flag moving correctly, etc), the tech didn't exist until post Y2K.


ArnieRambo said:
2) that still doesn't prove people actually landed on the moon.
Click to expand...

It does, because it proves that something landed on the moon and explored, and if you knew anything about the landings you would know that one of the reasons the US were sending humans instead of automated/remote controlled machines like the USSR did is because it's actually easier to send humans.


Angilion said:
The only explanation of them being faked that is consistent with itself and observable reality requires gods or wizards or aliens with far more advanced technology.
Click to expand...

Indeed, anyone claiming the moon landings were fake basically believe by extension in god or alien intervention due to the lol.


Scrutinize said:
To date, no one has ever offered credible or substantiated evidence against the moon landing, which holds greater weight than the evidence already presented for its occurrence.
Click to expand...

Well, nobody has offered any credible or substantiated evidence against the moon landing at all, hence why the nonsense put forward holds no weight.
 
There is a lot of third-party evidence to support that the moon landings happened... more than enough in fact... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

A total of 382 kilograms (842 lb) of Moon rocks and dust were collected during the Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions.[27] Some 10 kg (22 lb) of the Moon rocks have been used in hundreds of experiments performed by both NASA researchers and planetary scientists at research institutions unaffiliated with NASA. These experiments have confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar, and were used to identify lunar meteorites collected later from Antarctica.[28] The oldest Moon rocks are up to 4.5 billion years old,[27] making them 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks, which are from the Hadean eon and dated 3.8 to 4.3 billion years ago. The rocks returned by Apollo are very close in composition to the samples returned by the independent Soviet Luna programme.[29] A rock brought back by Apollo 17 was accurately dated to be 4.417 billion years old, with a margin of error of plus or minus 6 million years. The test was done by a group of researchers headed by Alexander Nemchin at Curtin University of Technology in Bentley, Australia.[30]
Click to expand...

"For those few misguided souls who still cling to the belief that the Moon landings never happened, examination of the results of five decades of LRRR experiments should evidence how delusional their rejection of the Moon landing really is.
Click to expand...

Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories.[41][42][43] Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.

After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution.[45][46]
Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the Moon.
Click to expand...

etc etc...
 
Last edited:
Spacedeck said:
Why all the talk about the tech needed to use CGI? Who is to say they didn't use a set they created...?
Click to expand...

Because that technology to do that hasn't been invented yet.

The set would be an exact replica of a part of the moon (not yet photographed) and the size of Chester, I think somebody may have noticed the Americans building that in the desert (plus the winds on earth would ruin everything).
 
ubersonic said:
Because that technology to do that hasn't been invented yet.

The set would be an exact replica of a part of the moon (not yet photographed) and the size of Chester, I think somebody may have noticed the Americans building that in the desert (plus the winds on earth would ruin everything).
Click to expand...

Not to mention the affects of lunar mavity are practically impossible to reproduce convincingly on earth for the duration demonstrated in the videos.
 
anything I don't mind said:
I know for a fact that no human has been higher than 400 miles above earth's surface. I also know for a fact that nasa is a fraud.
Click to expand...

Let me fix those typos for you.

anything I don't mind said:
I know for a fact that humans have been higher than 400 miles above earth's surface but I choose to ignore it because I want to.

I also know for a fact that nasa is not a fraud but choose to ignore it because I want to.
Click to expand...

All sorted, you're welcome :)
 
My own father believes any argument if you look official and can make it somewhat coherent.

A list of some of things he genuinely believes.

  • Aliens created our planet.
  • Aliens are responsible for man not evolution... and yet
  • Evolution is an idea made up by the goverment to take power from the church.
  • Jesus was a visiting alien. He unwittingly became famous.
  • The moon landing did not happen... and yet
  • The astronauts witnessed aliens and have been sworn to secrecy.

It doesn't have to be logical just a unified whole, a story that ties at the beginning to end and he'll swallow it up then re-spout it. SMH.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom