Jump to content


Were the moon landings fake?

Recommended Posts

I believe that they actually did land on the moon, and have been up there numerous times since. However I also think that they buggered up the actual photography and had to stage it again later.

 

Why on earth would you think that, when there is absolutely no evidence at all to support such a notion? (The latter, not the former, obviously..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sibon
Fruitcake alert.

 

To be fair, you would use an alert to indicate new and disturbing info.

 

"Mac33 is a fruitcake" is neither new nor disturbing. Just disappointing.

Edited by sibon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One would assume, infact expect that the Soviet Block and other countries with an interest in NOT losing the "Space Race" at the time would have been MUCH more vocal if the Moon landings didn't occur.

 

Afterall, who else would be more interested?

 

Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One would assume, infact expect that the Soviet Block and other countries with an interest in NOT losing the "Space Race" at the time would have been MUCH more vocal if the Moon landings didn't occur.

 

Afterall, who else would be more interested?

 

Nuff said.

Alternative three

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why on earth would you think that, when there is absolutely no evidence at all to support such a notion? (The latter, not the former, obviously..)

 

I saw a clip of the moon buggy being driven on the moon; they ran the film at a slightly different speed and it looked awfully like it was being driven on earth!

 

I believe they landed on the moon but faked some of the photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw a clip of the moon buggy being driven on the moon; they ran the film at a slightly different speed and it looked awfully like it was being driven on earth!

 

I believe they landed on the moon but faked some of the photos.

 

Luckily the scientists and mathematicians stopped believing and use this exact observation to calculate that the motion of the vehicle on the Moon is as predicted by the difference in gravity.

 

Conspiracy theorists and Creationists (not you Harrystottle) have a real problem with the laws of Motion and Thermodynamics as they repeatedly debunk their creations and conspiracies, to the extent that they think that they are part of the conspiracy.

 

Nearly every space photograph taken in the 70s and 80s has been doctored.

Nearly every image was taken in greyscale for increased resolution.

Most images are collages and therefore edited for distortion.

Colour was added to the image to improve definition for scientific purposes. These colours were not always the real or true colours.

NASA had an educational and press function and as its popularity faded a need to advertise itself. It make use of the pretty pictures.

Many children around the world wrote to JPL Pasadena in the 70s and 80s for the lovely/inspiring photographs they produced.

We knew that they were often 'constructions' and 'false colour images' as it said so on the packaging. These photographs were genuinely produced for enjoyment and not accuracy but have since been stripped of this acknowledgement for the benefit of conspiracy theorist.

Many local amateur astronomers and photographer pooled their skills to produce similar space images.

Most children new that Hollywood was good but not that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labelling people as conspiracy theorists is an attack on their character.

 

It's a derogatory term to stiffle dissent.

 

A theory is no longer a theory when there is evidence to back it up - no matter how small the evidence is.

 

The moon landings were faked,there's a ton of evidence to support this.

 

Filming of the 'event' by Hollywood Studio's does not amount to evidence for it being real - but for being faked!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Labelling people as conspiracy theorists is an attack on their character.

 

It's a derogatory term to stiffle dissent.

 

A theory is no longer a theory when there is evidence to back it up - no matter how small the evidence is.

 

The moon landings were faked,there's a ton of evidence to support this.

 

Filming of the 'event' by Hollywood Studio's does not amount to evidence for it being real - but for being faked!

 

What does the theory become if "A theory is no longer a theory when there is evidence to back it up - no matter how small the evidence is."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK MACC33

 

Simple question,

 

If the Earth is flat surely when the Sun is above the horizon then it is daytime everywhere on Earth :cool:

 

---------- Post added 24-07-2017 at 01:00 ----------

 

What does the theory become if "A theory is no longer a theory when there is evidence to back it up - no matter how small the evidence is."?

 

Basically it means Conspiracy Theorists say if you can only prove 99.99% of conclusive evidence then their conjecture about the remaining 0.01% (which they don't have to offer any proof for) is equally valid.

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A theory is no longer a theory when there is evidence to back it up - no matter how small the evidence is.

 

And yet you still believe in the flat Earth theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe there's a ice shelf around the perimeter that contains the water.

 

Footage from very high up showing the horizon to be completely level.

 

The horizon always rises to eye level too,no matter how high you go.

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2nCui9aU2w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I believe there's a ice shelf around the perimeter that contains the water.

 

Footage from very high up showing the horizon to be completely level.

 

The horizon always rises to eye level too,no matter how high you go.

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2nCui9aU2w

:huh:

Hmmm...

 

Well I've just watched that documentary video (I never realised that David Attenborough had such a good singing voice) and it almost had me convinced... right up to the end bit where they showed the map. :suspect:

 

Now, I realise my knowledge of geography is a bit outdated, and all sorts of countries have 'dissolved' over the years (for example, Czechoslovakia in 1993) since I last studied oxbow lakes and the tributaries of the Amazon (the river, not the world's largest internet company) but... what has happened to Australia? :confused:

 

Has Australia also been 'dissolved'? (probably due to acid rain?) :o

 

I'm sure I received a Christmas card from there only last year.

 

Are kangaroos and koala bears now extinct? :(

 

Is that why there are now so many Australians working in this country?

 

We need answers to these questions now! :help:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.