Did the Moon-men have a sense of humour?

Crpwned said:
I assume you have some solid links for us proving this?
That's bordering on the higher end of the crazy scale :p
Click to expand...

Its ok I don't have the time and you don't have the effort.

The shots I am talking about are the shots purporting to be of earth from x thousands of miles and showing the "sphere" when in fact it was actually the sphere of the port hole. The shot was made in low earth orbit then used again later as likely the astronauts were busy with other things.
 
Feek said:
And here we go. This isn't the time or the place for such garbage. Stop it.
Click to expand...

What so an opposing view that still fits the narrative isn't allowed? I've already said I believe we did land on the moon but stated some shots were faked. Plenty of places acknowledge it.

DrToffnar said:
Yep, absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

Monkey see monkey do

John40 said:
You don't know anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

Lol opines the next...
 
RaohNS said:
We did land on the moon but I do know a lot of shots were in fact faked. Its been proven by many many video and photography experts. This was likely done for propaganda purposes.
Click to expand...

Certainly some photos were edited before appearing in various publications - some cropped, rotated, bit of contrast changed, some were composited. That's not really the same as saying that they were faked.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
It's easy enough to understand why people think the moon landings were fake.

As a feat of science and engineering the scale of the effort was mind-boggling and the technology they used was laughable by today's standards. Plus no one has been back since.

Visiting the Kennedy Space centre is a real eye-opener in understanding what was involved, and I was lucky enough to be there when a rocket actually launched. Truly amazing stuff.

The sooner we spread into space the better. But again when you look at the challenges involved, it seems such a vast undertaking I do wonder who'll have the foresight to do so.
Click to expand...

President Kennedy was confident in the Apollo programme in 1961 because they had the rocket scientist Wenher Von Braun, who incidentally was a Nazi.
 
DrToffnar said:
Delicious sauce please.
Click to expand...

Find it yourself doctor.

JRS said:
Certainly some photos were edited before appearing in various publications - some cropped, rotated, bit of contrast changed, some were composited. That's not really the same as saying that they were faked.
Click to expand...

Editing is one thing. We could say every picture we see published by NASA from Hubble is "faked" if you go by saying editing should be classed as it. I am saying the astronauts filmed though a porthole then moved back and filmed to try and show earth from a further distance when in fact they were still in low earth orbit.

The moon pictures were just edited and any naysayers belief in these has been pretty much all - without exception - been disproved (thus proving them valid) eg the shadow runs at two angles, we know shadows can run at two angles from a single source of light.

So to keep people happy here yes we landed on the moon but some pictures were faked. You know a bit like some WW2 pics were faked that nobody bats an eyelid about.
 
lunar said:
President Kennedy was confident in the Apollo programme in 1961 because they had the rocket scientist Wenher Von Braun, who incidentally was a Nazi.
Click to expand...

Yes and as per Thomsons statement some mobile phones from the late 90's had far more technologically capable systems than back then.

We haven't been to the moon since 1972 if memory serves and yet most people I've asked the question to think we last went just before the millennium.

He wasn't the only former Nazi working on US military projects. The US got 30,000 of them out very easily.
 
Put it like this, the moon landings happened during the height of the cold war, the yanks and russians racing to be the first to get there.

The russian moon shot blew up, literally, the n1 test rocket was the largest single non nuclear explosion ever detonated and blew their only launchpad to smithereens, the program was cut as they knew they'd never be able to beat the americans after that disaster.

So from 1969 to the end of communism in russia the greatest minds of the russian government propaganda machine would have been doing their utmost to prove the american landings fake, but they didnt.

Tl:dr i think i'll take the combined weight of opinion of the russian and american governments over some consipracy nut on the internet.
 
RaohNS said:
Its ok I don't have the time and you don't have the effort.

The shots I am talking about are the shots purporting to be of earth from x thousands of miles and showing the "sphere" when in fact it was actually the sphere of the port hole. The shot was made in low earth orbit then used again later as likely the astronauts were busy with other things.
Click to expand...

It would have been easier to just write "No, I don't have any proof for this" :D
 
Crpwned said:
It would have been easier to just write "No, I don't have any proof for this" :D
Click to expand...

There is proof. You just cba go find it. Anyone who thinks every picture produced by NASA for the moon launch is legit is the same type of person who believes there were WMDs in Iraq
 
RaohNS said:
There is proof. You just cba go find it. Anyone who thinks every picture produced by NASA for the moon launch is legit is the same type of person who believes there were WMDs in Iraq
Click to expand...

The burden of proof lies with you good sir, since you made the claims that there were faked photos.

But it's ok, I wouldn't expect anything concrete from you :)
 
RaohNS said:
There is proof. You just cba go find it. Anyone who thinks every picture produced by NASA for the moon launch is legit is the same type of person who believes there were WMDs in Iraq
Click to expand...



You're the one making the sensationalist remarks, so it up to YOU to prove it. That's how it works - it's called burden of proof ;)
 
RaohNS said:
Editing is one thing. We could say every picture we see published by NASA from Hubble is "faked" if you go by saying editing should be classed as it. I am saying the astronauts filmed though a porthole then moved back and filmed to try and show earth from a further distance when in fact they were still in low earth orbit.

The moon pictures were just edited and any naysayers belief in these has been pretty much all - without exception - been disproved (thus proving them valid) eg the shadow runs at two angles, we know shadows can run at two angles from a single source of light.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Since we were talking about the landings I assumed that you were including lunar surface photos amongst those being faked. My bad!
 
The prog debunked the whole idea. Even the possibility that Russian Cosmonauts were lost in space were shown to have been due to the people not making the grade to go or in one case getting removed after a drunken brawl on the metro.
 
stopper said:
Grow up will you. Not all truth seekers are tinfoil hatters.
There is always 1 that wants to poke fun.
Click to expand...

There are sceptics and then there are people who disregard expects and research for some unqualified knob preaching this and that, with anecdotes and circumstantial yet not unexpected evidence. It undermines valuble advances and hard earned progress.

Imagine if the anti-vaccine nuts started a trend which lead to polio and tb coming back to western countries. TB especially scary because more strains of this incredible contagious disease are found to be resistant to last resort anti-biotic treatments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom