1969 Moon Landing

[fleckneymike]

Exactly my question, why have they not cleared it up without doubt? They could do easily, but all these things have gone "missing", another one along with the "missing" technology is the original broadcast from the moon. They seem very careless at NASA.

Edit: And they didn't construct the conspiracy, but they certainly have let it grow.

As this thread is proving you apparently cannot clear it up because disinformationists refuse to listen. Every point raised has been categorically refuted yet it makes no difference to hoax believers, they simply invent a new thoery. It is like battling hydra.

[The Doctor]

A simpler explanation would be that they went to the Moon.

I don't disagree that they did. What I was trying to do is work out a reason for Shrapnel saying NASA wanted to keep the conspiracies alive.

[Captain...]

As this thread is proving you apparently cannot clear it up because disinformationists refuse to listen. Every point raised has been categorically refuted yet it makes no difference to hoax believers, they simply invent a new thoery. It is like battling hydra.

But surely releasing a grainy picture of a few darker pixels on the moon as proof, is just going to give more ammunition.

There is one argument that often gets me thinking, it is the old temperature one, the temperature on the dark side of the moon is something like -270, and on the light side +270 (El Empty has the facts somewhere on here) no current fabrics or suits can with stand or protect a human being from either of those temperatures. I have never seen that one explained.

[Zingari]

Because conspiracy theories which ignore science are dangerous.

As many of us have posted, scepticism is fine, adherence to dogma is dangerous.

If you allow these things to creep into the public consciousness you are on a slippery slope to myth and fable in science.

But surely science would be immune from such ludicrous infractions, so need not have any fear unlike religion of course , which abhors any questioning.

Mainstream science shouldn't be concerned with a lunatic fringe unless it has something to hide .

[OzFox]

But surely releasing a grainy picture of a few darker pixels on the moon as proof, is just going to give more ammunition.

There is one argument that often gets me thinking, it is the old temperature one, the temperature on the dark side of the moon is something like -270, and on the light side +270 (El Empty has the facts somewhere on here) no current fabrics or suits can with stand or protect a human being from either of those temperatures. I have never seen that one explained.

Those temperatures might be farenheit, in which case the highest "day" temperture is about 123 degrees celcius. I'm sure they can build a spacesuit to cope with that even in the 1960s

[fleckneymike]

But surely releasing a grainy picture of a few darker pixels on the moon as proof, is just going to give more ammunition.

There is one argument that often gets me thinking, it is the old temperature one, the temperature on the dark side of the moon is something like -270, and on the light side +270 (El Empty has the facts somewhere on here) no current fabrics or suits can with stand or protect a human being from either of those temperatures. I have never seen that one explained.

Again this is due to a piss poor understanding of science. Space is a vacum. In vacums the only heat transfer mechanism is radiation as, unlike on earth, there is no atmosphere to trap the heat from the sun (and obviously block some of the heat like here on earth where the temperature isn't +270 during the day) it is relatively straightforward to shield equipment and astronauts from this via reflective materials.

The temperature of the moon does alter slightly throughout a lunar day, a lunar day however takes nearly 30 earth days so sun up to sun down takes quite a while.

[fleckneymike]

But surely science would be immune from such ludicrous infractions, so need not have any fear unlike religion of course , which abhors any questioning.

Mainstream science shouldn't be concerned with a lunatic fringe unless it has something to hide .

You do love your logical fallacies. By your reasoning any questioning of anything is valid and if anyone rebuts these questions they are in fact not answering questions but hiding something. Conversely if they don't answer the questions they too are hiding something.

Like I said, disinformationists are like hydra.

[breadandcheese]

Sorry chaps , this is wildly off topic but one thing that always intrigues me in all of these conspiracy types of threads

Why are so many posters concerned that some people believe that the moon landings etc were a hoax ?

Why do they bother trying to convince those that believe them to be a hoax otherwise ?

If they think they are mad, delusional , ill educated fools , why bother ?

I don't go into asylums and try to convince everyone they aren't Napoleon , so what is the reason for it ?

One can only assume that there is just a chink of doubt in their minds that they are hoping to dispel ?

Or maybe it's because you care so deeply about them that you want to help and cure them of the demons in their heads?

edit;

I know , I do ask some strange stuff , sorry

As mentioned by marty78, to stop disinformation. Say something often enough and long enough and idiots believe it. That's why it's important to challenge people spouting rubbish, less it spreads.

Man went to the moon. End of. Every point raised has been debunked.

[Zingari]

As mentioned by marty78, to stop disinformation. Say something often enough and long enough and idiots believe it. That's why it's important to challenge people spouting rubbish, less it spreads.

Man went to the moon. End of. Every point raised has been debunked.

Sorry but i have to disagree on one point here

It really seems like the more conspiracy theories are challenged , the more they get re-charged and even after 40 odd years conspiracy theories such as JFK etc etc refuse to lie down .

This is not because the weight of science has supposedly challenged and disproven the theories ( as it really should have done by now ) , but quite the opposite . More and more are refusing to believe official dogma and questioning longer and harder than they did in the past when the tactic was to "let it lie and let it die "

[fleckneymike]

Sorry but i have to disagree on one point here

It really seems like the more conspiracy theories are challenged , the more they get re-charged and even after 40 odd years conspiracy theories such as JFK etc etc refuse to lie down .

This is not because the weight of science has supposedly challenged and disproven the theories ( as it really should have done by now ) , but quite the opposite . More and more are refusing to believe official dogma and questioning longer and harder than they did in the past when the tactic was to "let it lie and let it die "

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, which theories surrounding the moon landing are yet to be disproved?

[marty78]

As mentioned by marty78, to stop disinformation. Say something often enough and long enough and idiots believe it. That's why it's important to challenge people spouting rubbish, less it spreads.

Man went to the moon. End of. Every point raised has been debunked.

The biggest problem is the people who make money from writing books, creating websites and giving lectures as "guest" speakers. All conspiracies are thought up by someone looking to make a few quid and/or get their face in the paper. They prey on the insecurities of the uninformed and it often works as well. The internet has magnified this problem ten fold.

I worked recently with a 17 year old kid who genuinely believed in a World order called the Illuminati. He thought they were sending subliminal signals through pop music and films etc to control the populations of the World. He really believed and tried showing me internet sites and YouTube videos to convince me. One of which was a video by David fcuking Ike of all people. Sad really.

[marty78]

Sorry but i have to disagree on one point here

It really seems like the more conspiracy theories are challenged , the more they get re-charged and even after 40 odd years conspiracy theories such as JFK etc etc refuse to lie down .

This is not because the weight of science has supposedly challenged and disproven the theories ( as it really should have done by now ) , but quite the opposite . More and more are refusing to believe official dogma and questioning longer and harder than they did in the past when the tactic was to "let it lie and let it die "

That is the key part. There is photographs, video recordings, audio recordings, Astronaut's testimony, NASA ground staff testimony and Russia's reluctance to question the achievement (despite hundreds of hours of data collected) as just some of the evidence for.

The evidence for a hoax has changed continuously as each piece is debunked.

[Zingari]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, which theories surrounding the moon landing are yet to be disproved?

I meant to make the point that to keep challenging conspiracy theories at every level is not quelling them , they seem to be stimulating them .Quite the opposite of the stated intention .

Or do you believe that these wild conspiracy theories are believed by less people nowadays than previously ?

30 years ago I knew of no-one who even remotely suspected a hoax , but I'm fairly sure now that there are many with uneasy suspicions.

Yes you can possibly blame it on the repeated use of modern mantras such as "Gulf of Tonkin" or "Northwoods" ( that was a good point that you made )and say much of the distrust in authority springs from there and we've all got paranoid . But maybe with good reason.

[fleckneymike]

I meant to make the point that to keep challenging conspiracy theories at every level is not quelling them , they seem to be stimulating them .Quite the opposite of the stated intention .

Or do you believe that these wild conspiracy theories are believed by less people nowadays than previously ?

30 years ago I knew of no-one who even remotely suspected a hoax , but I'm fairly sure now that there are many with uneasy suspicions.

Yes you can possibly blame it on the repeated use of modern mantras such as "Gulf of Tonkin" or "Northwoods" ( that was a good point that you made )and say much of the distrust in authority springs from there and we've all got paranoid . But maybe with good reason.

What single hoax theory surrounding the moon hasn't been answered?

[fleckneymike]

30 years ago I knew of no-one who even remotely suspected a hoax , but I'm fairly sure now that there are many with uneasy suspicions.

and then in 1977

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhLHAKoK35w

[Zingari]

What single hoax theory surrounding the moon hasn't been answered?

How can anyone disprove such things when NASA has provided all the evidence for a moon landing , real or faked ?

How can you prove they've been other than using information provided by them through whatever means ?

One can only raise suspicions that the truth is not being told .

i can't prove who really shot JFK but i'm sure as fook it wasn't LHO ( acting alone )

Using this logic , if i can't absolutely prove they are lying and give all the facts and name all the real assassins giving full cast iron evidence , then by default this proves they are not lying and we should believe everything they say.

and then in 1977

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhLHAKoK35w

i suppose no-one suspected a thing about the JFK assassination until Oliver Stone eh ?

[marty78]

How can anyone disprove such things when NASA has provided all the evidence for a moon landing , real or faked ?

How can you prove they've been other than using information provided by them through whatever means ?

One can only raise suspicions that the truth is not being told .

i can't prove who really shot JFK but i'm sure as fook it wasn't LHO ( acting alone )

Using this logic , if i can't absolutely prove they are lying and give all the facts and name all the real assassins giving full cast iron evidence , then by default this proves they are not lying and we should believe everything they say.

i suppose no-one suspected a thing about the JFK assassination until Oliver Stone eh ?

What about the Moon rocks brought back with a different composition to Earth rocks?

What about the pictures taken by Selene, the Japanese Lunar probe.

What about the fact they used Australian observatories (not NASA owned) to relay Apollo transmissions?

What about the fact there were multiple landings and not just one? Why Bother?

[fleckneymike]

How can anyone disprove such things when NASA has provided all the evidence for a moon landing , real or faked ?

How can you prove they've been other than using information provided by them through whatever means ?

One can only raise suspicions that the truth is not being told.

Again this is quite staggering logic. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect the Americans to have generated most of the evidence considering they are the only people to have gone there. However the fact that their evidence can and has been independently verified is quite useful.

There is plenty of 3rd party evidence for the moon landing but once again conspiracy theorists ignore all of this. I really would be grateful if you could offer just one area in which the is clear doubt, i.e. where there is no scientific explanation or evidence.

[z-layrex]

Of course it happened. How did the lunar reflectors get there otherwise? Magic?

[Zingari]

Can someone tell me where James Collier is wrong with his assessment that the dust from the rover wheels is hitting atmosphere ?

it's just the first 5 minutes of this clip

actually the whole film is worth watching and all the other segment are there

[fleckneymike]

Can someone tell me where James Collier is wrong with his assessment that the dust from the rover wheels is hitting atmosphere ?

it's just the first 5 minutes of this clip

actually the whole film is worth watching and all the other segment are there

Can you tell me why he is correct? No.

Does the dust spiral in an arc? Yes. In fact it goes up in a parabolic arc (though it does not complete a parabolic arc).

Does the dust fall straight back down? Yes

Does the dust form clouds? No because there is no atmosphere.

Ironically this example you have chosen actually proves that they landed on the moon.

You can watch the first 10 seconds of this and see if you can spot the slight difference

[Zingari]

Can you tell me why he is correct? No.

Does the dust spiral in an arc? Yes. In fact it goes up in a parabolic arc.

Does the dust fall straight back down? Yes

Does the dust form clouds? No because there is no atmosphere.

Ironically this example you have chosen actually proves that they landed on the moon.

It looks to me as though the dust is thrown upwards and hitting something ( a wall of air) and I really can't see an parabolic arch in the path of the dust , I can see a "rooster tail " , the same as was described by the astronauts . Or are you saying they are deluded too and seeing something that isn't there ?

A rooster tail isn't a parabolic arch so proves that this film footage was not taken in conditions with no atmosphere .

[marty78]

"The "waves" are caused when the rover turns and spews dust at an angle. Each dust particle will follow it’s own trajectory. When the rover turns, the dust is thrown at varying angles, causing a wave appearance to a stationary observer. Spray water from a hose and watch the water drops. Now, swing the hose. Each water droplet still is following it’s trajectory, but the path appears to curve. This is really an optical illusion." From the link below.

Have a read of this debunking of James Collier. It is very old and took a while to find but it includes actual physics and reasoned argument. It doesn't just cover his dust claim either but pretty much everything. It is time coded and you want to start at 28:58.

[Zingari]

"The "waves" are caused when the rover turns and spews dust at an angle. Each dust particle will follow it’s own trajectory. When the rover turns, the dust is thrown at varying angles, causing a wave appearance to a stationary observer. Spray water from a hose and watch the water drops. Now, swing the hose. Each water droplet still is following it’s trajectory, but the path appears to curve. This is really an optical illusion." From the link below.

Have a read of this debunking of James Collier. It is very old and took a while to find but it includes actual physics and reasoned argument. It doesn't just cover his dust claim either but pretty much everything. It is time coded and you want to start at 28:58.

bollox

[fleckneymike]

It looks to me as though the dust is thrown upwards and hitting something ( a wall of air) and I really can't see an parabolic arch in the path of the dust , I can see a "rooster tail " , the same as was described by the astronauts . Or are you saying they are deluded too and seeing something that isn't there ?

A rooster tail isn't a parabolic arch so proves that this film footage was not taken in conditions with no atmosphere .

This 'wall of air', very odd as it apparently only affects the horizontal and not the vertical. One would assume that the 'air' would influence both the horizontal and the vertical what with it being air and you know, being everywhere.