Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[Jeff]

I guess one avenue of discussion that might narrow this thing down is to ask a given individual---"Do you or do you not concede that NASA has, at times, altered photos?

And I would answer, of course. But hoaxing 10 trips to lunar orbit - For what? Why not stop after the first or second landing, when Americans had lost interest? And was Apollo 13 hoaxed as well? - is a little more complex than smudging photos. Or is this more "weird stuff" from me to mention that?

I guess, when I signed up to be a conspiracy theorist, I didn't take the All Inclusive package. Because I have no compunction about saying that Moon hoax talk - and that includes "maybe they did, maybe they didn't" - is, for me, evidence of impaired judgement.

[rothbardian]

"...hoaxing 10 trips to lunar orbit..." ??

Wow! There you go again. Who, pray tell, are you arguing with? Some people here really, really, really want to drag this discussion over into another topic. (?)

So, while we're on this tangent, I guess I would make this comment--

When you say you allow for no "maybe they did/maybe they didn't"...the only alternative is 100% absolute certainty. That's illogical and unreasonable. No human I know of, has absolute knowledge of anything. You're proposing absolute knowledge of what goes on with these NASA people?

And you're proposing that anyone who even questions this...anyone who is asking questions about the moon landings has "impaired judgment"? Makes no sense: Some people (like myself) are asking questions because we haven't finished our own investigation...or have just barely begun a specific examination of all this stuff (moon landings).

You are indicating you have absolute and (literally) unquestioning certainty about where and when these government people are lying and/or covering up.

Oh...you're not? Then if you don't know where all 'truth' begins and the falsehoods/cover-ups/misdirections end...then that stands in direct contradiction to your other position that says-- "maybe/maybe not" indicates impaired judgment.

I don't know all the facts here, so for me...I want, initially, to put everything about this subject up on the chopping block. There is something utterly anti-logical about a starting point that says..certain aspects get a 'free pass'and must not be questioned.

If you've concluded all the moon landings actually happened...great. I'm inclined to believe that myself. The absurdity though...is your position that says I am not even allowed to be "inclined".

That's "impaired judgment" according you. Something is badly amiss with that reasoning process. Going about trying to disqualify any action which so much as even questions these (or other) things...is mind boggling. It is anti-reason (new word?).

[Jeff]

If you've concluded all the moon landings actually happened...great. I'm inclined to believe that myself. The absurdity though...is your position that says I am not even allowed to be "inclined".

Oh no, of course you are allowed. I'm just saying that anyone who doubts the general statement that men have visited the Moon has dug a credibility hole as far as I'm concerned. (And please note the distinction between accepting that general statement and being an apologist for every press release and photograph issued by NASA.)

[orz]

There's some weird stuff going on here with Orz and Jeff.

Yeah it's called 'rational thought.' It's pretty wacky stuff! But hey, it's not so bad once you get used to it.

[yesferatu]

If you've concluded all the moon landings actually happened...great. I'm inclined to believe that myself. The absurdity though...is your position that says I am not even allowed to be "inclined".

Oh no, of course you are allowed. I'm just saying that anyone who doubts the general statement that men have visited the Moon has dug a credibility hole as far as I'm concerned. (And please note the distinction between accepting that general statement and being an apologist for every press release and photograph issued by NASA.)

Oh for god's sake ....he was not asking were we allowed.

Re-read everything because you will not answer the thrust of the whole thread. It's funny you are outraged ny some lone guy who put up a fake You Tube video, but will never discuss the fakery in the official photos. Whatever your discerning eye saw in the video that made it appear fake to you, you would think that could be brought to bear on the official fake photos as well, and get a concession that they appear to be fake...and then maybe the question: Why? But no. Since there were no diverging shadows at least in the fake video, and was more well done than the poor job they did with the fake official photos and videos, then the discernment and discrimination should carry over to an analysis of the official video and photos as well. But no. Why not offer a theory on the fakery of the official videos. You get worked up over some poor guy who posts a video on YouTube...you would think you would get worked up over fakery that actually matters. But no.

They went and they faked. Doesn't that bother you?

Your bellowing about the certainty they went when everyone (so far) has conceded they probably went, is mere castigation for not being "all in" like unimpaired you, as well as misdirecting the thrust of the questions: why the fakery? Ok, they went. Why did they have to fake certain things, even though they went??

[orz]

"Diverging shadows" is out and out gibberish, and I have no idea how on earth it's supposed to demonstrate that the photos are fake. It makes no sense.

[yesferatu]

"Diverging shadows" is out and out gibberish, and I have no idea how on earth it's supposed to demonstrate that the photos are fake. It makes no sense.

o = light source

| = shadow line


First...normal, non- faked:


\ | /

o


Now faked:


| /

o




That is my out and out kindergarten lesson for the day. We will cover primary colors tomorrow.

[yesferatu]

"Diverging shadows" is out and out gibberish, and I have no idea how on earth it's supposed to demonstrate that the photos are fake. It makes no sense.

o = light source

| = shadow line


First...normal, non- faked:


\ | /

o


Now faked:


| /

o




That is my out and out kindergarten lesson for the day. We will cover primary colors tomorrow.

Ahh...they got left justified.

normal:

..............\ | /

.............. o


and fake:

.............. | /

.................... o


see if that works

[orz]

Nope, not really. Still gibberish bearing no relation to the actual images and the shadows therin. Doesn't even seem to correspond with the multiple contradictory incorrect ideas that other moon hoax theorists describe as "converging shadows," so at least you get points for originallity maybe?

[orz]

Code: Select all

HINT: try the "code" tag for making meaningless ascii art diagrams next time.

    o                     __...__     *               
                  *   .--'    __.=-.             o
         |          ./     .-'     
        -O-        /      /   
         |        /    '"/               *
                 |     (@)     
                |        \                         .
                |         \
     *          |       ___\                  |
                 |  .   /  `                 -O-
                  \  `~~\                     |
             o     \     \            *         
                    `\    `-.__           . 
        .             `--._    `--'jgs
                           `---~~`                *
                *                   o

 

[/code]

[yesferatu]

Nope, not really. Still gibberish bearing no relation to the actual images and the shadows therin.

Yes. Really.

Quit embarrassing yourself.

Believe me...there is no one out there saying "That's right orz!! You tell him."

They are all kind of embarrassed right now for you. You should stop.

[streeb]

They are all kind of embarrassed right now for you. You should stop.

I'm not, and no he shouldn't. This board needs Orz. Nomo, too.

[philipacentaur]

They are all kind of embarrassed right now for you. You should stop.

I'm not, and no he shouldn't. This board needs Orz. Nomo, too.

Agreed, though I'm sure that's not surprising.

[Horatio Hellpop]

I guess, when I signed up to be a conspiracy theorist, I didn't take the All Inclusive package. Because I have no compunction about saying that Moon hoax talk - and that includes "maybe they did, maybe they didn't" - is, for me, evidence of impaired judgement.

Considering some of the 'theories' you've put forward yourself, this is a pretty heavy statement. Why is the moon landing a sacred cow? I mean it's not as if you and I can prove it by hopping over to the moon and looking for evidence.

[yesferatu]

They are all kind of embarrassed right now for you. You should stop.

I'm not, and no he shouldn't. This board needs Orz. Nomo, too.

Agreed, though I'm sure that's not surprising.

But gosh, can't you give an opposing kindegarten lesson to explain the science? It is just kindergarten physics. I gave you the kindergarten lesson you may have missed class for that particular day. So now you give yours.
Where do you see proof of one light source (the sun) on the moon in those photos?

Instead of "Yay for our side" how about just doing a point for point analysis. I can't seem to get you guys to do that. Why not?

"They went"

yeah um, I know that. Can we discuss the fakery now that we have established that they went?