Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?

FUBAR · Post by **FUBAR** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:40 am

Well they did go to the moon, it's not made of cheese and the dark side isn't really dark. :-6 Sorry have I ruined the conspiracy..............

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:55 am

Themis;1137501 wrote: I might add, that I know you would not debate this way in the real world but maybe I'm wrong and may be FG is your real world...

I'd certainly agree that I am spending far too much time on it debating this stuff right now. Danyial has directly insulted me several times and sneered when I have tried to give hones answers to questions, so I feel under no compunction to be nice to him right now. However, in general no, I don't debate like this normally, but then proper debates involved both sides being intellectually honest with one another. Otherwise, its not an exchange of ideas, just a slagging match.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:02 am

Galbally;1137543 wrote: Otherwise, its not an exchange of ideas, just a slagging match.Bloody dyslexic leprechaun, get back where you came from.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:08 am

Galbally;1137468 wrote: Again, another rambling, shambolic string of undisguised petty insults launched in a tirade against me. I don't live in a box, I live in the Irish countryside, and I work in it as an environmental scientist, so I am very attached to the world in reality, and not some collection of fantasys gathered by just looking at lots of junk internet evidence that panders to your own prejudice to believe this rubbish.

I am not remotely interested in impressing you, or pandering to your wide range of self-reinforced delusions, they are your issues. I repsect your right to hold those views, but I fundamentally disagree with them. In any case, I am sure you don't need anyone to agree with you to be 100 percent convinced you are right, after all you also don't need to look subjectively at any evidence, or use rational argument to come to conclusions, so having a general concensus your "right" would hardly also be required.

To you, your 100 percent right because "you" believe you are, I am sure that's good enough for you, and why you don't like people challenging your opinions, because your already convinced your on some height looking down on all of us poor mortals while you ponder the "real truth". Quite, thats known as Napoleonism or the "God Complex".

In any case, I have made my points about why the moon landing was a real event several pages ago. I won't reiterate them. It's tedious at this stage.

Also, could you please try to write withough using so many capital letters, it like arguing with a machine program or something.

I Don't Give Dam Where You Live Really Overstand And Later For Your Weak A**Testimony . Like I Said You're More Than Welcome To Challenge ANYTHING I Post ANYTHING . I Careless About Your So-called History Etc . I'm Not Interested In Your Excuses , Put Up Or Shut-Up

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:22 am

Daniyal;1137560 wrote: I Don't Give Dam Where You Live Really Overstand And Later For Your Weak A**Testimony . Like I Said You're More Than Welcome To Challenge ANYTHING I Post ANYTHING . I Careless About Your So-called History Etc . I'm Not Interested In Your Excuses , Put Up Or Shut-Up

Fine, so lets quit it with the personalized insults and just debate the issues then, how is that?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:23 am

spot;1137553 wrote: Bloody dyslexic leprechaun, get back where you came from.

Grrrrrrr. Rar, gryyy, nghhhhh, oooummmmph.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:09 am

Themis;1137797 wrote: No, negative.. if you were this honest in public to peoples faces you could meet someone who would follow the advice of your father..

Nobody would call me insane to my face let me make that clear...

THEMIS.... YOUR BACK

:yh_hugs:yh_hugs:yh_hugs:yh_hugs:yh_hugs

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:21 am

Themis;1137797 wrote: No, negative.. if you were this honest in public to peoples faces you could meet someone who would follow the advice of your father..

Nobody would call me insane to my face let me make that clear...

Sorry, who called you insane?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:40 am

spot;1137334 wrote: What bits in red on Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake? seem unreasonable to you?

In particular:The flag and words that are refered to are those on the side of the Lunar Module. They are lit up by scattered light off of the lunar surface and other equipment. Apparently, "photographer" Percy does not know about simple techniques used to light up dark shadows in the studio or in the field here on Earth. I can show you many many examples of photographs and how they relate to the video taken at the same time by the astronauts. Claims that they don't match are simply Percy's or Rene's opinions.

I took my time to read this link through twice and i can see genuine questions raised by the doubter and i can see genuine explanations given in reply. As i am still of an open mind, i see that both are sides of the argument are equal.

Who is to say that the one giving the explanations is correct and likewise who is to say that the doubter is correct.

I need more convincing.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:45 am

oscar;1137885 wrote: I took my time to read this link through twice and i can see genuine questions raised by the doubter and i can see genuine explanations given in reply. As i am still of an open mind, i see that both are sides of the argument are equal.

Who is to say that the one giving the explanations is correct and likewise who is to say that the doubter is correct.

I need more convincing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily exhaustive proof. If you disagree with that then perhaps you'd like to explain why.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008 ... ary-c.html discusses the issue.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:55 am

spot;1137888 wrote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily exhaustive proof. If you disagree with that then perhaps you'd like to explain why.

Skeptico: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence discusses the issue.

I did not say i disagreed with it, merely that i saw both sides of the questions and answers. I shall read this thoroughly. Thankyou.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:22 am

Okay, lets get some clarity here.

Firstly I generally have an aversion to conspiracy theories, that point I made right at the start. However, that doesn't mean I think everyone who has questions about strange events or mysteries is an idiot, mad, a imbecile, or anything else.

Also, there are very many different conspiracy theories, and you can't just lump them all in together.

There are the extreme all encompassing ones about black helicopters new world orders, zionists controlling everything, the Aliens called "Grey's" are running some sort of mass breeding experiment on planet earth, chariots of the gods, atlantis, all of that.

Then there are the ones that simply are not creditable like the moon shot one, or that September 11th was caused by the Jews or George Bush, there was no Nazi holocaust, or whatever.

Then there are the more comedy ones about Elvis being alive, Paul McCartney being dead, etc etc. Aliens kidnaped the UN Secretary General etc etc.

Then there are ones that are genuine mysteries, paranormal events that can't be explained, UFO sightings that can't be explained, incidents of clairvoyance, telekinesis, that I believe have rational explanations, but are real mysteries. There are also historical puzzles that are also real mysteries, again I think they have rational explanations, but they are mysteries.

Then there are events that you can reasonably say were definetly as the result of some forms of conspiracy, the murder of President Kennedy, perhaps his brother (though more unlikely), the coup against Alende in Chile in 1974, the murder of Anna Poleskyva in Moscow 2 years ago, or Alexander Litvinenko by Polonium 210. There are actually loads of these, such as the WMD dossier thing, or many political murders, (but its funny the more mundane conspiracies which are real, and very serious on occasion, don't seem to perk up as much of people's interest as the more exotic outlandish things), and that should ring alarm bells that a lot of this is to do with group physchology and the need to believe in certain things, as opposed to a real analysis of events.

Also, there are conspiracies that we don't know about, (and by definition have been completely successful). I am not saying that conspiracies are not real, of course they are, its human nature to conspire. Also, yes, governments and organizations do try to hide the truth or put out misinformation or bamboozle the public, they do it all the time, they are doing it right now with Climate change, or with the various wars that are going on, usually for very sound reasons relating to who gets the money, and who doesn't. All very prosaic and un-mysterious.

But some things are not possible to pull off, some are obviously based on overblown delusions of grandeur, and some are simply created by paranoia or to see conspiracy as a means of explaining unusual events.

Its my opinion that by wasting time coming up with crazy things, you end up discrediting real mysteries, or things that are actual conspiracies by people with bad agendas. For example if someone had looked a bit harder at the people supposed to regulate fraud on wall street, and guessed they were maybe compromised by something, then perhaps the Credit Crunch, or Bernie Madoff wouldn't have happened.

Conspiracies are like crimes in general, you need a realistic motive, the means to carry it off technically and organizationally, the will to do it, and the opportunity to do it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:01 pm

Galbally;1137940 wrote: Okay, lets get some clarity here.

Firstly I generally have an aversion to conspiracy theories, that point I made right at the start. However, that doesn't mean I think everyone who has questions about strange events or mysteries is an idiot, mad, a imbecile, or anything else.

Also, there are very many different conspiracy theories, and you can't just lump them all in together.

There are the extreme all encompassing ones about black helicopters new world orders, zionists controlling everything, the Aliens called "Grey's" are running some sort of mass breeding experiment on planet earth, chariots of the gods, atlantis, all of that.

Then there are the ones that simply are not creditable like the moon shot one, or that September 11th was caused by the Jews or George Bush, there was no Nazi holocaust, or whatever.

Then there are the more comedy ones about Elvis being alive, Paul McCartney being dead, etc etc. Aliens kidnaped the UN Secretary General etc etc.

Then there are ones that are genuine mysteries, paranormal events that can't be explained, UFO sightings that can't be explained, incidents of clairvoyance, telekinesis, that I believe have rational explanations, but are real mysteries. There are also historical puzzles that are also real mysteries, again I think they have rational explanations, but they are mysteries.

Then there are events that you can reasonably say were definetly as the result of some forms of conspiracy, the murder of President Kennedy, perhaps his brother (though more unlikely), the coup against Alende in Chile in 1974, the murder of Anna Poleskyva in Moscow 2 years ago, or Alexander Litvinenko by Polonium 210. There are actually loads of these, such as the WMD dossier thing, or many political murders, (but its funny the more mundane conspiracies which are real and very serious on occasion don't seem to perk up as much of people's interest as the more exotic outlandish things), and that should ring alarm bells that a lot of this is to do with group physchology and the need to believe in certain things, as opposed to a real analysis of events.

Also, there are conspiracies that we don't know about, (and by definition have been completely successful). I am not saying that conspiracies are not real, of course they are, its human nature to conspire. Also, yes, governments and organizations do try to hide the truth or put out misinformation or bamboozle the public, they do it all the time, they are doing it right now with Climate change, or with the various wars that are going on, usually for very sound reasons relating to who gets the money, and who doesn't. All very prosaic and un-mysterious.

But some things are not possible to pull off, some are obviously based on overblown delusions of grandeur, and some are simply created by paranoia or to see conspiracy as a means of explaining unusual events.

Its my opinion that by wasting time coming up with crazy things, you end up discrediting real mysteries, or things that are actual conspiracies by people with bad agendas. For example if someone had looked a bit harder at the people supposed to regulate fraud on wall street, and guessed they were maybe compromised by something, then perhaps the Credit Crunch, or Bernie Madoff wouldn't have happened.

Conspiracies are like crimes in general, you need a realistic motive, the means to carry it off technically and organizationally, the will to do it, and the opportunity to do it.

Very early in this thread, you seemed to infer that they were indeed all lumped in together and that was one of the reasons umbrage was exposed.

You say the kennedy assasination was reasonably the result of a conspiricy yet dismiss other conspiricy theories that may sound 'wacky'. There i will disagree with you again. That is one event that was not a conspiricy. JFK was shot by LHO and 'a lucky bullet'. Yes, i have read many a ballistics report on that one. Anna Poleskyva in Moscow 2 years ago, or Alexander Litvinenko by Polonium was an act of murder reputedly by 'Putin'..... no conspiricy there.... just usual KGB style silencing. The WMD dossier was not a conspiricy, just Blair's lies to follow Bush into an illegal war.

You seem to dismiss the most puzzling and those needing lengthy explanation as 'crazy things created by paranoia'. The examples you have given have clear cut explanations yet you seem to class them as conspiricy in some form. There-fore, i do not see that you are in a position to question what others may question.

There could have been motives to fake the moon landing. Diverting the USA from an impending cold war and the illegal invasion of Vietnam for two.

'To close your mind is to turn the last page in the book'.... My dad.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:38 pm

oscar;1138017 wrote: Very early in this thread, you seemed to infer that they were indeed all lumped in together and that was one of the reasons umbrage was exposed.

You say the kennedy assasination was reasonably the result of a conspiricy yet dismiss other conspiricy theories that may sound 'wacky'. There i will disagree with you again. That is one event that was not a conspiricy. JFK was shot by LHO and 'a lucky bullet'. Yes, i have read many a ballistics report on that one. Anna Poleskyva in Moscow 2 years ago, or Alexander Litvinenko by Polonium was an act of murder reputedly by 'Putin'..... no conspiricy there.... just usual KGB style silencing. The WMD dossier was not a conspiricy, just Blair's lies to follow Bush into an illegal war.

You seem to dismiss the most puzzling and those needing lengthy explanation as 'crazy things created by paranoia'. The examples you have given have clear cut explanations yet you seem to class them as conspiricy in some form. There-fore, i do not see that you are in a position to question what others may question.

There could have been motives to fake the moon landing. Diverting the USA from an impending cold war and the illegal invasion of Vietnam for two.

'To close your mind is to turn the last page in the book'.... My dad.

Akhay Atha Antut

I Must Take My Hat Off To You Again For Dealing With This Word Game Of Tricknowldge , You Have A Lot Of Patience With Them . I Just Wish I Could Be Their When The Truth Knock At Their Door And Take Them Away , So I Could Laugh

In Their Face . And Some Here Say I'm Brain Wash By . M.Z.York :wah::wah:

Hala Benra -Un - Yawum

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:00 pm

oscar;1138017 wrote: Very early in this thread, you seemed to infer that they were indeed all lumped in together and that was one of the reasons umbrage was exposed.

You say the kennedy assasination was reasonably the result of a conspiricy yet dismiss other conspiricy theories that may sound 'wacky'. There i will disagree with you again. That is one event that was not a conspiricy. JFK was shot by LHO and 'a lucky bullet'. Yes, i have read many a ballistics report on that one. Anna Poleskyva in Moscow 2 years ago, or Alexander Litvinenko by Polonium was an act of murder reputedly by 'Putin'..... no conspiricy there.... just usual KGB style silencing. The WMD dossier was not a conspiricy, just Blair's lies to follow Bush into an illegal war.

You seem to dismiss the most puzzling and those needing lengthy explanation as 'crazy things created by paranoia'. The examples you have given have clear cut explanations yet you seem to class them as conspiricy in some form. There-fore, i do not see that you are in a position to question what others may question.

There could have been motives to fake the moon landing. Diverting the USA from an impending cold war and the illegal invasion of Vietnam for two.

'To close your mind is to turn the last page in the book'.... My dad.

Ok, to kill one man, even a US President, is entirely feasible, wouldn't be beyond the capability of anyone who had enough access to him, or had influence in the secret service. As to kill one human being all you need are some snipers, some bullets, and enough political clout to cover it up. Its very difficult to get away with it, thats the hard part, but its very plausible to do it. Murdering a human being is a very simple task, faking a moon landing is an entirely different matter.

To fake a moon shot would require the complicity of everyone involved in it, it was the world's greatest scientific project at the time (and probably still is), tens of thousands of people worked on it, billions watched it, it would have required the complicity of everyone in the government in the US, and most other countries, as well as most major TV stations across the world, and the global scientific community.

Also, as I have repeatedly told you, all the stuff that went up there, is still there, all of the landers, all of the missions equipment, if the first moon shot was faked then there would be one missing. Anyone will tell you who has access to scientific papers, that there was reams of scientific work and papers that came from the Apollo mission, its mostly all publically accessible. Its not plausible that this was all faked.

Also, every time one of the conspiracy theory planks is debunked, the conspiracy theory changes to suit the evidence, so it goes from "man never went to the moon" to "man went to the moon, but not in 1969" to "man went to the moon, but it was the Russians and it was 1965" In fact, I bet I could start a website, claiming that precise thing, cobble together some "facts" and some aerospace photos, and within a few weeks it would be doing the rounds on the net.

Aha, you see, your not interested in the Litvenenko or Poluskayva murders, because they are just mundane political murders, and you think you already know what happened, but you don't, no one does, they are unsolved. However, its fairly obvious what happened, so there is no "mystery" for you in it.

You may remember that during the period of the WMD dodgy dossier, a BBC reporter had his career ruined, a government scientist was found dead one morning in a woods, (while the PM was out of the country), the PM lied directly to the houses of Parliament and the UN, with the complicity of those in government, and yet most of the people in government now, were also there at the time.

No one is questioning what really happened, there has been a whitewash, and no other political party is prepared to get into the details, because of the political ramifications of what could result. That's a conspiracy of a sorts, a very, very serious one for British democracy. The truth about Iraq will out one day, but only probably when the main players are all safely dead. That to me is the definition of a very sucessful conspiracy, run at the highest level of state, and no one will ever be found guilty of anything. In fact, no one even wants to ask the questions, because it really is a can of worms.

The examples I have given are conspiracies, they are just dirty normal conspiracies though they don't have the cachet of the aliens or the jews or whatever, because they don't stroke that nerve that thrills to think there is some deeper meaning in what's going on, that there is some grand design pulling the strings.

You seem to be saying that the only things that are real conspiracies are ones that would defy any logical explanation, and require fantastical claims to be made on the flimsiest of evidence. Again, not creditable.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:05 pm

Daniyal;1138165 wrote: Akhay Atha Antut

I Must Take My Hat Off To You Again For Dealing With This Word Game Of Tricknowldge , You Have A Lot Of Patience With Them . I Just Wish I Could Be Their When The Truth Knock At Their Door And Take Them Away , So I Could Laugh

In Their Face . And Some Here Say I'm Brain Wash By . M.Z.York :wah::wah:

Hala Benra -Un - Yawum

Salutations to you too Danny but 'Goddess'??? I don't think so :wah::wah: A mere mortal i can assure you.

It's not patience Danny..... I'm a woman..... Stubborn, argumentative and obstinant :wah:

You have a nice day too. :-6:-6:-6

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:08 pm

Galbally;1138196 wrote: Ok, to kill one man, even a US President, is entirely feasible, wouldn't be beyond the capability of anyone who had enough access to him, or had influence in the secret service. As to kill one human being all you need are some snipers, some bullets, and enough political clout to cover it up. Its very difficult to get away with it, thats the hard part, but its very plausible to do it. Murdering a human being is a very simple task, faking a moon landing is an entirely different matter.

To fake a moon shot would require the complicity of everyone involved in it, it was the world's greatest scientific project at the time (and probably still is), tens of thousands of people worked on it, billions watched it, it would have required the complicity of everyone in the government in the US, and most other countries, as well as most major TV stations across the world, and the global scientific community.

Also, as I have repeatedly told you, all the stuff that went up there, is still there, all of the landers, all of the missions equipment, if the first moon shot was faked then there would be one missing. Anyone will tell you who has access to scientific papers, that there was reams of scientific work and papers that came from the Apollo mission, its mostly all publically accessible. Its not plausible that this was all faked.

Also, every time one of the conspiracy theory planks is debunked, the conspiracy theory changes to suit the evidence, so it goes from "man never went to the moon" to "man went to the moon, but not in 1969" to "man went to the moon, but it was the Russians and it was 1965" In fact, I bet I could start a website, claiming that precise thing, cobble together some "facts" and some aerospace photos, and within a few weeks it would be doing the rounds on the net.

Aha, you see, your not interested in the Litvenenko or Poluskayva murders, because they are just mundane political murders, and you think you already know what happened, but you don't, no one does, they are unsolved. However, its fairly obvious what happened, so there is no "mystery" for you in it.

You may remember that during the period of the WMD dodgy dossier, a BBC reporter had his career ruined, a government scientist was found dead one morning in a woods, (while the PM was out of the country), the PM lied directly to the houses of Parliament and the UN, with the complicity of those in government, and yet most of the people in government now, were also there at the time.

No one is questioning what really happened, there has been a whitewash, and no other political party is prepared to get into the details, because of the political ramifications of what could result. That's a conspiracy of a sorts, a very, very serious one for British democracy. The truth about Iraq will out one day, but only probably when the main players are all safely dead. That to me is the definition of a very sucessful conspiracy, run at the highest level of state, and no one will ever be found guilty of anything. In fact, no one even wants to ask the questions, because it really is a can of worms.

The examples I have given are conspiracies, they are just dirty normal conspiracies though they don't have the cachet of the aliens or the jews or whatever, because they don't stroke that nerve that thrills to think there is some deeper meaning in what's going on, that there is some grand design pulling the strings.

You seem to be saying that the only things that are real conspiracies are ones that would defy any logical explanation, and require fantastical claims to be made on the flimsiest of evidence. Again, not creditable.

It seems 'here we go again' diverting the thread into the Blair's government, Iraq, Litvenenko, Poluskayva, Dr David Kelly, JFK or anyone else except it seems than provide some links to educate me rather than offer your opinion. After all, we are dealing with facts are we not?

First of all, we all know Blair lied to Parliment but seriously, are you really trying to suggest that as Blair was out of the country at the time of Dr Kelly's death, he engineered it? Is that not some wild conspiricy theory? Now that is 'wacky'. Blair the murderer? Kelly's death was suicide and nothing more.

Again you seem to think the Kennedy Assassination was a conspiricy and talk of the 'political clout' and the 'secret service'. This seems to be in contradiction to which you suggested earlier that conspiricy theories are borne of paranoia. LHO was a would be communist who got lucky through ill planned security that would not happen to day. I base that opinion on the many years i have spent researching the logic behind it and not the flight of fancy that some wish it to be. However, as always i am of open mind and if anyone can show me new evidence to support that there was a conspiricy, i'll be happy to look at it.

You say i am not interested in the Litvenenko and Poluskayva murders and i dismiss them as mundane political murders and i think i know what happened. I read everything there was on offer at the time of the murders and came to my conclusion that it was probably down to Putin. Why do you find that there is a conspiricy behind them? The only remaining mystery is who actually ordered their deaths. That's pretty obvious to anyone and yes, it is a mundane political side of Russia that has been going on for decades.

To get back to topic and not go down the route of Blair is part of a conspiricy, there is a possibility that the 'stuff' as you refer to it on the moon could have been put there around the same time by an un-manned mission. Otherwise....... Why has no-one been back there???????????????????????????????????????????????

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:14 pm

Is it just me or does anyone else agree that not one person on this board is qualified to argue astro physics? so in essence everyone is debating other peoples' arguments. Not really knowing scientifically if they are faulty or not.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:17 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1138249 wrote: Is it just me or does anyone else agree that not one person on this board is qualified to argue astro physics? so in essence everyone is debating other peoples' arguments. Not really knowing scientifically if they are faulty or not.

Exactly...... at least you provided links Buzzy

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:25 pm

Hello evil one :yh_rotfl i'm coming over to see you so be on your best behaviour.:yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:27 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1138257 wrote: Hello evil one :yh_rotfl i'm coming over to see you so be on your best behaviour.:yh_rotfl :wah: I saw your thread. We have to meet up.... we must we must we must we must :wah: I could have such fun :sneaky::yh_rotfl

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:32 pm

oscar;1138244 wrote: It seems 'here we go again' diverting the thread into the Blair's government, Iraq, Litvenenko, Poluskayva, Dr David Kelly, JFK or anyone else except it seems than provide some links to educate me rather than offer your opinion. After all, we are dealing with facts are we not?

First of all, we all know Blair lied to Parliment but seriously, are you really trying to suggest that as Blair was out of the country at the time of Dr Kelly's death, he engineered it? Is that not some wild conspiricy theory? Now that is 'wacky'. Blair the murderer? Kelly's death was suicide and nothing more.

Again you seem to think the Kennedy Assassination was a conspiricy and talk of the 'political clout' and the 'secret service'. This seems to be in contradiction to which you suggested earlier that conspiricy theories are borne of paranoia. LHO was a would be communist who got lucky through ill planned security that would not happen to day. I base that opinion on the many years i have spent researching the logic behind it and not the flight of fancy that some wish it to be. However, as always i am of open mind and if anyone can show me new evidence to support that there was a conspiricy, i'll be happy to look at it.

You say i am not interested in the Litvenenko and Poluskayva murders and i dismiss them as mundane political murders and i think i know what happened. I read everything there was on offer at the time of the murders and came to my conclusion that it was probably down to Putin. Why do you find that there is a conspiricy behind them? The only remaining mystery is who actually ordered their deaths. That's pretty obvious to anyone and yes, it is a mundane political side of Russia that has been going on for decades.

To get back to topic and not go down the route of Blair is part of a conspiricy, there is a possibility that the 'stuff' as you refer to it on the moon could have been put there around the same time by an un-manned mission. Otherwise....... Why has no-one been back there???????????????????????????????????????????????

Well, if its implausible that the British Prime minister would have someone killed on a matter of War, why is it less implausible that the US Government would attempt, or believe it could ever get away with staging a fake moon landing?

Why would anything be implausible by those standards? Perhaps the Japanese actually invented the Atomic bomb themselves and dropped it on Hiroshima themselves to ensure their population could accept a military defeat they realized was inevitable.

How about the idea, that in actual fact there is a civiization of Merpeople living in the deep oceans, our governments know about it, but cover it up and are actually in cahoots with them. Generally they leave us alone, but sometimes they get mischeivous and cause nuclear submarines to collide with each other by messing with their sonar?

What about the Pyramids? Maybe they weren't build 4,500 years ago, maybe they were built much earlier by a race of atlanteans, that are now living under the ocean and are the merpeople.

Perhaps the space shuttle Challenger didn't explode in 1987, it was faked, and the spacecraft actually went on a deep space mission to Europa and has been in contact with the alien civilization that lives under its permanent ice-sheet? It may sound implausible, but perhaps the US government has been running a concurrent secret space shuttle program that uses technology sequestered from crashed alien spacecraft that allows deep space explration. Maybe they have already been all around the solar system.

What about Antartica, they claim its uninhabited, but how do they really know? Antartica is twice the size of Australia, only several thousand people have ever been there for any length of time. Its largely unexplored, even now, most of it has only been mapped by aircraft. Perhaps under the ice there are networks of tunnels, created by a civilization of neanderthals that evolved into a higher form, and decided to isolate themselves from the rest of the planet and create a hidden civilization?

These are all fantastical claims, but in fact right now, they would be all very hard to 100 percent disprove, so does mean that they are correct?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:49 pm

Why would anything be implausible by those standards? Perhaps the Japanese actually invented the Atomic bomb themselves and dropped it on Hiroshima themselves to ensure their population could accept a military defeat they realized was inevitable.

Now there's a thought. I'm sure it's been conspiritised by those who feel people couldn't be as evil to wipe out whole cities.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:49 pm

Galbally;1138264 wrote: Well, if its implausible that the British Prime minister would have someone killed on a matter of War, why is it less implausible that the US Government would attempt, or believe it could ever get away with staging a fake moon landing?

Why would anything be implausible by those standards? Perhaps the Japanese actually invented the Atomic bomb themselves and dropped it on Hiroshima themselves to ensure their population could accept a military defeat they realized was inevitable.

How about the idea, that in actual fact there is a civiization of Merpeople living in the deep oceans, our governments know about it, but cover it up and are actually in cahoots with them. Generally they leave us alone, but sometimes they get mischeivous and cause nuclear submarines to collide with each other by messing with their sonar?

What about the Pyramids? Maybe they weren't build 4,500 years ago, maybe they were built much earlier by a race of atlanteans, that are now living under the ocean and are the merpeople.

Perhaps the space shuttle Challenger didn't explode in 1987, it was faked, and the spacecraft actually went on a deep space mission to Europa and has been in contact with the alien civilization that lives under its permanent ice-sheet? It may sound implausible, but perhaps the US government has been running a concurrent secret space shuttle program that uses technology sequestered from crashed alien spacecraft that allows deep space explration. Maybe they have already been all around the solar system.

What about Antartica, they claim its uninhabited, but how do they really know? Antartica is twice the size of Australia, only several thousand people have ever been there for any length of time. Its largely unexplored, even now, most of it has only been mapped by aircraft. Perhaps under the ice there are networks of tunnels, created by a civilization of neanderthals that evolved into a higher form, and decided to isolate themselves from the rest of the planet and create a hidden civilization?

These are all fantastical claims, but in fact right now, they would be all very hard to 100 percent disprove, so does mean that they are correct?

That's the exact point i am trying to make. This is a thread about 'moon landing' not a varible source of possible conspiricies and your posts seem to do nothing more than attempt to divert the topic from which it was intended. For that reason, i will not reply to the points you made and try again to bring the thread beack to topic.

Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey proves that the technology existed to fake the dockings, landings, walks and take-offs from the surface of the moon. The means were there all along.

'Lookout Mountain Air Force Station' built in 1947 and purposes kept secret, could process 35 mm and 16 mm motion pictures, optical prints and still photo's.

Civilian staff worked at the studio's along side military staff. Field staff included photographers who were airmen assigned to the USAF photographic squadron.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:54 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1138249 wrote: Is it just me or does anyone else agree that not one person on this board is qualified to argue astro physics? so in essence everyone is debating other peoples' arguments. Not really knowing scientifically if they are faulty or not.

I am not an astrophysicist no, my area is chemistry. Though I do also have a fair understanding of physics, at least Newtonian mechanics (which was what was used to plot the trajectory of the lunar orbiter, the landing craft, and the launch of the initial rocket). This argument that the technology or the science was not in place to achieve a moon landing in 1969 is simply not factually correct. A lot of modern technology we have now, is based on the technology that was developed to achieve the Apollo landings, it wasn't just a National triumph for the US, it was truly a technical tour de force.

I am sure if we had a working astrophysicist on the boards, or an aerospace engineer, he would go through the specs of each system used, the science involved in getting the craft from Florida to the Sea of Tranquility, and back.

I can't believe we need to have a physics lecture to explain the inverse sqaure law of gravitation, or the concept of acceleration being provided by a liquid fueled rocket to breach Earth orbit, of which the Saturn V had ample thrust to achieve. In 1974, NASA put Skylab into Orbit, a working spacestation, the Russians had Mir in the 1980s, the Russians put the Minerva spacecraft into the atmosphere of Venus in the early 70s, while NASA sent the Viking lander to Mars in 1976.

These things all happened, they were completely technically possible, or else they wouldn't have been done. The Apollo mission was on the same scale as these missions, the only difference being that their was a manned landing vehicle, that had to return to Earth, that was the really hard bit.

But it wasn't that hard, they did it, in fact they went to the moon on multiple occasions, and all of the stuff they put up there, IS STILL THERE, YOU CAN SEE IT IN A FLIPPIN TELESCOPE, if it was technically impossible, how come that is so, how did all that junk get up there????

How come the laser interferometer has been working for 40 years, to perfect accuracy, confirmed by other scientific studies across the world since 1969. Oscar, you are simply are not giving a valid answer to that point.

Talk about beating your head off a brick wall.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:03 pm

oscar;1138280 wrote: That's the exact point i am trying to make. This is a thread about 'moon landing' not a varible source of possible conspiricies and your posts seem to do nothing more than attempt to divert the topic from which it was intended. For that reason, i will not reply to the points you made and try again to bring the thread beack to topic.

Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey proves that the technology existed to fake the dockings, landings, walks and take-offs from the surface of the moon. The means were there all along.

'Lookout Mountain Air Force Station' built in 1947 and purposes kept secret, could process 35 mm and 16 mm motion pictures, optical prints and still photo's.

Civilian staff worked at the studio's along side military staff. Field staff included photographers who were airmen assigned to the USAF photographic squadron.

My point was about the ability to make almost any implausible argument, based on the fact that nothing is one hundred percent disproveable, thats a basic tenant of logic itself, you cannot disprove a negative as they say.

The moon landing is a great example of this, the evidence, testimony, eyewitness accounts, documentary evidence, and physical evidence of the moon shot (including the collection of moon rock, and the artifacts left on the surface of the moon) should make it immediately apparent, that its undeniable, that someone has been up on the moon, that they went up there sometime around July 1969, which is the month that Neil Armstrong is "alleged by government sources" to have climbed out of the Eagle lander and walked around, live on Global TV.

Yet, there is this brick wall of disbelief, based on some shadows in a photograph, the appearance of a c-shaped shadow on a rock, reports that woman in the outback saw a coke can getting kicked around up there, and that some cross-hairs on a camera were a bit funny (all of which, BTW, have been explained), and some well-crafted conspiracy theories, I just don't get it.

This has obviously become a pointless exercise, there is no rational argument that is going to sway this belief that for some reason, the moon landing is all a big hoax, none of the actual evidence is believeable, and that they spent all that money, built all that infrastructure, employed all those people for a decade, and devleoped all that technology, launched those rockets into orbit, all to play the world's greatest practical joke.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:08 pm

Yeah I see what you're saying Gal, but this thread is the exact reason why I believe Science has become more of a religion than a discipline. Like if science says it's true ....then it must be . We know Carbon dating is so faulty (scientifcally ) it's beyond belief but people will still hold to it .

so for me ...and my limited understanding of science I don't believe men landed on the moon at that time . (but then again I was a dribbling 6 month old when they supposedly did.) But my Dad believes it . But he also believes everything the Catholic church tells him as well .........whattya do eh?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:10 pm

Galbally;1138318 wrote:

But it wasn't that hard, they did it, in fact they went to the moon on multiple occasions, and all of the stuff they put up there, IS STILL THERE, YOU CAN SEE IT IN A FLIPPIN TELESCOPE, if it was technically impossible, how come that is so, how did all that junk get up there????

How come the laser interferometer has been working for 40 years, to perfect accuracy, confirmed by other scientific studies across the world since 1969. Oscar, you are simply are not giving a valid answer to that point.

Talk about beating your head off a brick wall.

As is the possibility that an un-manned craft docked it before or after the the manned mission.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:12 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1138326 wrote: Yeah I see what you're saying Gal, but this thread is the exact reason why I believe Science has become more of a religion than a discipline. Like if science says it's true ....then it must be . We know Carbon dating is so faulty (scientifcally ) it's beyond belief but people will still hold to it .

so for me ...and my limited understanding of science I don't believe men landed on the moon at that time . (but then again I was a dribbling 6 month old when they supposedly did.) But my Dad believes it . But he also believes everything the Catholic church tells him as well .........whattya do eh?

These Scientists eh Fuzzy?????? :yh_rotfl

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:24 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1138326 wrote: Yeah I see what you're saying Gal, but this thread is the exact reason why I believe Science has become more of a religion than a discipline. Like if science says it's true ....then it must be . We know Carbon dating is so faulty (scientifcally ) it's beyond belief but people will still hold to it .

so for me ...and my limited understanding of science I don't believe men landed on the moon at that time . (but then again I was a dribbling 6 month old when they supposedly did.) But my Dad believes it . But he also believes everything the Catholic church tells him as well .........whattya do eh?

Science is based on evidence, not belief in a set of quasi-religious principals. Scientists can't make claims they can't back up with evidence, thats the whole purpose of it.

The British and French designed and built the world's first and only supersonic airliner in 1969, it was a technical marvel, it hasn't been copied since, but its real, the engineering is based on the same laws of physics that the Apollo Mission used, no one claims that Aircraft are a hoax, or Nuclear Weapons (1945), or microprocessors based on principals in quantum mechanics (1970s), no one questions these things, but it seems that none of these realities count for anything, when it comes to the moon.

I posted a long post about what the scientific method is, and why its not "a religion"; that's a claim being made by religious people with an agenda that involves undermining 300 years of scientific progress, undoing the enlightenment and the scientific revolution, and essentially sending us back into a medieval mindset. It seems at the moment, thats working quite well.

Oh god, this is so depressing.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:28 pm

Galbally;1138371 wrote:

Oh god, this is so depressing.

Why?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:36 pm

oscar;1138331 wrote: As is the possibility that an un-manned craft docked it before or after the the manned mission.

So somehow it was technically possible to get an unmanned ship up there by remote control, land it on the moon in real time (landing the Eagle was by far the most difficult part of the flying and had to be done manually by an Airforce pilot (i.e Buzz Aldrin), this remote control mission would have been run somehow through Houston I suppose, despite the fact there was an 8 minute communication delay, and no guidance computers at the time that had anywhere near the ability to do such things,

I mean even today, how many airplanes are landed by computers, the only ones I know about are Drones, and even they are actually controlled by humans on the ground because flying aircraft is something that is extremely difficult. Let alone trying to land a rocket on the moon, remotely from Earth. Then you'd have to get these things out onto the surface about 30 meters from the spacecraft, via remote control or a robot or something, in 1969, before we even had microchips.

So you think thats a plausible explanation, but its impossible that you could have put some guys in the ship instead, flown them up there, and just got them to land the craft manually, then open a hatch and walk over and lay the interferometer mirror on the ground. Why in the name of god would you no do that instead? If you could do these things by remote control or computers in 1969, you wouldn't have needed to hoax anything, as it would be harder to do that, so then why not just do the bloody mission like you planned all along, with people, this is utterly ridiculous.

Anyways, before this goes belly up again, I am off to bed, right no more moon stuff, I am too disillusioned to continue.

Night.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:41 pm

Galbally;1138434 wrote: So somehow it was technically possible to get an unmanned ship up there by remote control, land it on the moon in real time (landing the Eagle was by far the most difficult part of the flying and had to be done manually by an Airforce pilot (i.e Buzz Aldrin), this remote control mission would have been run somehow through Houston I suppose, despite the fact there was an 8 minute communication delay, and no guidance computers at the time that had anywhere near the ability to do such things,

I mean even today, how many airplanes are landed by computers, the only ones I know about are Drones, and even they are actually controlled by humans on the ground because flying aircraft is something that is extremely difficult. Let alone trying to land a rocket on the moon, remotely from Earth. Then you'd have to get these things out onto the surface about 30 meters from the spacecraft, via remote control or a robot or something, in 1969, before we even had microchips.

So you think thats a plausible explanation, but its impossible that you could have put some guys in the ship instead, flown them up there, and just got them to land the craft manually, then open a hatch and walk over and lay the interferometer mirror on the ground. Why in the name of god would you no do that instead? If you could do these things by remote control or computers in 1969, you wouldn't have needed to hoax anything, as it would be harder to do that, so then why not just do the bloody mission like you planned all along, with people, this is utterly ridiculous.

Anyways, before this goes belly up again, I am off to bed, right no more moon stuff, I am too disillusioned to continue.

Night.

Don't walk away from me when i'm arguing with you :-5

So, all that scientist blah and he has to fix it with a biro eh? :wah:

THE astronauts who made the historic moon landing in 1969 almost ended up stranded there, new evidence reveals.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin accidentally snapped off the switch of a circuit breaker - and they could not take off again without it.

But Aldrin improvised by jamming the end of a ballpoint pen into the hole where the switch had been and the astronauts' landing module was able to lift off the moon's surface.

It was one of a string of near disasters that threatened to turn the triumph of Armstrong's famous "one small step for man" moonwalk into a tragedy.

A new documentary says the Americans were so eager to beat the Soviets to a moon landing they launched their mission more in hope than expectation

Such was the danger that US President Richard Nixon had prepared an address to the nation announcing the deaths of Apollo 11 trio Armstrong, Aldrin and Michael Collins.

Aldrin, now 76, told filmmakers how his heart sank when he suddenly realised the vital switch had been broken - probably as one of the astronauts brushed against it in a bulky spacesuit.

He said: "In looking around at some of the lunar dust on the floor, I discovered something that really didn't belong there - a broken end of a circuit breaker.

"In the countdown procedure I used a pen, one of several that we had on board that didn't have metal on the end, and we used that to push the circuit breaker in."

Apollo 11: The Untold Story, screened tonight on Five, gives new insight into the crisis when the landing module was thrown off course by a computer breakdown just as it was about to land.

As the astronauts frantically tried to work out what was wrong the module drifted and they became dangerously short of fuel. At one stage they were still 100ft from landing but with only 60 seconds of fuel left in the tanks.

Aldrin told the documentary: "Without trying to disturb Neil's concentration my body language was urging him to 'Get on the ground as soon as you can.'

Armstrong managed to land with just 15 seconds of fuel left. Secret documents made available for the first time show how NASA bosses failed to tell the astronauts that the escape procedures they had been taught could well be useless.

The escape plan they were banking on would only work if the giant Saturn V rocket that powered their craft had already broken off.

The US Government had already ordered NASA to cut links with the astronauts if disaster loomed.

They did not want the world watching pictures of the Americans spinning off into space.

Aldrin also told how the astronauts believed they saw a UFO during the flight - but NASA covered it up for thirty years.

He said: There was something out there that was close enough to be observed.'

The show also highlights how primitive the moon landing technology was.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:11 pm

[quote=Galbally;1138371]Science is based on evidence, not belief in a set of quasi-religious principals. Scientists can't make claims they can't back up with evidence, thats the whole purpose of it.

I once heard science explained as chipping away at whats not evidence until youre left with the truth. Or something like that.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:16 pm

Nomad;1138771 wrote: [quote=Galbally;1138371]Science is based on evidence, not belief in a set of quasi-religious principals. Scientists can't make claims they can't back up with evidence, thats the whole purpose of it.

I once heard science explained as chipping away at whats not evidence until youre left with the truth. Or something like that.

Could have been:

'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, (Sherlock Holmes)

But then, wasn't Sherlock Holmes non-existent? Or did he really exist? Who knows? he could have existed and it could be a conspiricy. :-2:-2:wah:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:24 am

oscar;1138774 wrote: [QUOTE=Nomad;1138771]

Could have been:

'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, (Sherlock Holmes)

But then, wasn't Sherlock Holmes non-existent? Or did he really exist? Who knows? he could have existed and it could be a conspiricy. :-2:-2:wah:

Were you up at 5.16 am posting about this?? Good lord woman, get some sleep. :-2

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:15 am

Galbally;1138877 wrote: [QUOTE=oscar;1138774]

Were you up at 5.16 am posting about this?? Good lord woman, get some sleep. :-2
:wah: My husband is unwell and sleep is sporadic lately.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:59 am

Galbally;1138264 wrote: Well, if its implausible that the British Prime minister would have someone killed on a matter of War, why is it less implausible that the US Government would attempt, or believe it could ever get away with staging a fake moon landing?

: Sorry galbally but couldn't resist.

Attached files

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:20 am

Then theres the whole matter of the space station...fact or fiction

Anyhoo is it really anyones business except ours the US of A whether the moon walk was genuine ?

Its our brainchild, our baby and maybe we have our reasons for keeping people that live in foreign places from the truth. Didnt think of that did you ?

Maybe were taking over the universe, maybe were just really tricky.

So go play your bagpipes and throw potatos at eachother while we the US of A conduct our important business.

GOD !

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:46 am

Themis;1139156 wrote: It wasn't "one small step for the US of A" was it?

and didn't the Germans have something to do with it?

you can boast that the USA build flying saucers but you didn't build the Stargate, my psychiatrist can confirm that

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Germans ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh boy....

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:02 am

The truth ?

The moon landing was in Florida.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:28 am

What ???

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:22 am

Nomad;1139775 wrote: What ???

As a citizen of the 51st State of America, I abide by my right to the 5th amendment.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:32 am

Themis;1139156 wrote: It wasn't "one small step for the US of A" was it?

and didn't the Germans have something to do with it?

you can boast that the USA build flying saucers but you didn't build the Stargate, my psychiatrist can confirm that

1. Cold War â€” The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race against the Soviet Union.

2. Money â€” NASA raised approximately $30 billion to go to the Moon. This amount could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity.

3. Risk â€” This argument assumes that the problems early in the space program were insurmountable, even by a technology team fully motivated and funded to fix the problems. The chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.017%.

4. Distraction â€” According to hoax proponents, the U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions canceled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.

5. Delivering the promise â€” To seemingly fulfill President Kennedy's 1961 promise "to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:46 am

oscar;1139935 wrote: As a citizen of the 51st State of America, I abide by my right to the 5th amendment.

Well Im sorry then.

I thought playing your bag pipes and throwing potatos was fairly innocuous and absurd enough to slide as a routine Nomadism.

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:13 am

Nomad;1139163 wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Germans ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh boy....

Yes.

Wernher von Braun, Nazi rocket scientist, father of the V-2 used against London in WWII, built with slave labour by concentration camp inmates. There were many more.

The Russians and Americans liberally used Nazi rocket scientists in their space programmes, and looked the other way when it came to their deeds in the war. The American initiative was called "Operation Paperclip".

Von Braun, the chief designer of the Saturn V moon rocket, became a naturalised US citizen in 1955.

Operation Paperclip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:14 am

what ?????