lozgti

I've enjoyed your posts Tel and point of view,but that did make me smile sorry

ritchie21

I'm not for one minute suggesting that you are stupid and apologise if that's how things came across. I just really can't comprehend where you're coming from that's all - and no i'm not stupid either!!

Holy Ghost

one thing's for sure, pink floyd definitely got to the dark side of the moon.

Holy Ghost

... or did they? we only have the album as proof ...

GC8

Did the 30 seconds seem to go on forever, eh?

GC8

I was relatively sceptical about the moon landings, but I will admit that I was hoping to be wrong. I watched a documentary recently which de-bunked all of the popular 'evidence' and whilst it was far from being a hatchet-job, it did leave the conspiracy theorists looking foolish and amateur. The same can be said for JFK. Id read a couple of books which made it look absolutely certain that everything wasnt as it was being represented. Oliver Stones film added to this (although not for me, as I havent seen it); a little research into fact shows that the film was a nonsense and the lead character/hero was, in actual fact, a discredited dishonest buffoon. The audio evidence (the cornerstone of sensible conspiracy theories as it suggests multiple shooters) was discredited when it transpired that the police officer wasnt where he thought he was, established through careful study of all available photographs. Other 'evidence' such as the magic bullet was easier to discredit through simply looking at the car and the position of the seats: the Governor was sat in a jump seat, so his wounds prove (rather than disprove as suggested) that the shot came from the book depository. The moon theories all fail under similar careful examination (dust didnt move, flag blew in the wind; cant see the stars etc).

All that said: I still want to know who was driving that white FIAT Uno.....

Simon

ricardo

Let's say that sometime in the next umpteen years there is a return visit to the Moon. All televised (same as before) and with lots of pictures and NASA web galleries and stuff. And they don't fry (same as before).

What's to stop people saying that this one is a hoax too ? What would convince the CT people that the flight has really gone to the Moon ?

GC8

Education. Instead of ignoring conspiracy theories and considering replying to be beneath them, they should deconstruct the theories rather than allowing them to gather pace...

Leslie

You must be the only one who can't see that your comments about faking it are nothing but snide and unnecessary to boot. If you have no proof, it is almost childishly stupid to make such insinuations.

Rude and unpleasant comments also go a long way to weaken one's arguments.

Les

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Les, I see where Telboy is coming from, its pretty obvious since he's said it nthteen times already. Unless I have read this completely wrong - in Tels opinion man has been on the moon based on evidence and probabilities presented, but his mind is open to change. All the comments about faking it are not HIS, its just he is the one being the devils advocate on this particular thread.

Its hardly rocket science, is it

Leslie

It seemed to me that if you were prepared to go on and on about their ability to fake it all and even go as far as to brainwash the astronauts and probably all those who worked for Nasa at the time, then you must at least be trying to place doubt in people's minds about whether it happened or not. What on earth can be the point of that especially when there is not a shred of proof that it could have happened like that.

It showed gross disrespect to such an amazing achievement for no good reason.

If you want to play devil's advocate you also have to be prepared to accept that others will disagree with you and unpleasant or rude replies are quite unnecessary.

Les

Geezer

IIRC, it wasn't even remotely controlled from Earth, The NASA engineers knew eactly the rate of ascent, so a simple bit of trigonometry and a motor, et voila!

The camera was started by remote, but it then just followed the craft up at a pre-determined rate, hardly rocket science (well, actually..... )

Geezer

OllyK

That's exactly what they will do.

Nothing will, it's more important to them to think the US government / NASA faked it all.

TelBoy

Not true for all CTers, Olly, you can't make sweeping generalisations like that.

Another thread that raises all the same issues, just in case you can't get to sleep tonight...

Paranormal Forums - :: View topic - Moon landings

OllyK

You show me the CT'er that now thinks the lunar landings weren't faked and I'll retract the generalisation.


What a god awful sight. Takes a lifetime to load and flashing adverts all over the place. Only looked at the first 2 pages but same old same old. A load of people coming out with unsubstatiated claims. The odd person making the effort to address the claims only for the response to be ignored and another random claim to be made.

TelBoy

Exactly why i've not bothered with links. It leads nowhere. And most CTers do have criteria which they would accept as definitive proof. The ones who would deny it come what may are the ones who need locking up.

OllyK

I agree linking to another debate is largely a waste of time. But if you can find a well put together CT site that takes each item in turn and and carefully explains the problems with the moon landings then that would be different.

TelBoy

I could, but i won't. Cheers.

Geezer

Why not? Clavius.org is not a discussion site, but a very pointed refutation of each point in turn by well respected scientists in the fields that are contested.

Each claim is examined, and then extremely well though out responses (that are verifiable through respected channels, not CT wild claiming or paranoia) are put forward as to why the CT claims are incorrect.

When I first heard the CTs for the moon landings, I can see why some people without an understanding (myself included) would question some of them, but some of it was clearly wild speculation right from the start.

However, some of them are blindingly obvious as to why they have happened (the pictures being one) but all of the claims have been proved to be false, backed up with suitable scientific evidence. This simply has no happened the other way round.

Geezer

Leslie

There are probably quite a few reasons for those who feel they have to attempt to debunk the moon landings, such as an innate dislike for the USA, sheer jealousy for one reason or another, or maybe even a tabloid type of view of the whole thing, like the redtop papers hoping to create a fuss about it all because they have nothing better to live for.

If there was any kind of positive proof that there had been a huge scam then one can understand why such things might be examined and discussed. So far there has been no method displayed how Nasa managed to persuade all their workers and the astronauts to take part in a con to fool the rest of the world. In fact I reckon that would have been an achievement to almost match going to the moon and back.

It cannot be denied that it was a magnificent achievement and since there is nothing whatsoever to prove that they cheated I think that the theories about it being a fraud should be laughed out of court and that instead they should be given the unconditional plaudits that they well deserve.

All this "sour grapes" attitude does nothing to impress with regard to the characters of those who persist in these accusations.

Les

TelBoy

Because no sites offer new evidence, geezer. Simple as. You either think that the doubts as a whole, refuted though they are, add up to the possibility of a cover-up, or you don't.

TelBoy

Les how many more times are you going to spout the same hollow drivel? I don't fekkin care what you think. Tell it to the 8% of Americans who are obviously jealous of their own country. Fof ****'s sake listen to yourself. You are not the authority on this subject, you do not know the truth for 100% certain, just get off you frigging high horse and let other people make their own decisions, without being partonised to the nth degree by armchair experts like you.

Geezer

So you are basically saying that you don't believe what these highly qualified, highly respected scientists say in refutation, over what a few crackpots say without any backup whatsoever?

It is the CTers who offer NO evidence, let alone any new evidence.

Come on, post one link to a creditable site, I dare ya

Geezer

PeteBrant

On the subject of crackpots. I wathed a documentary I had sky plussed the other day, about tower 7 collapsing on 9/11.

It was quite a balanced view of both sides. And once they had gone through and debunked pretty much every single conspiracy theory, the head of Architects for 9/11 truth or such like claimed that that building had actually been constructed with explosive embedded into the structure in 1988

TelBoy

Sheesh, listen once again. There is no site (that i'm aware of) which hasn't been pulled to pieces. That link i posted earlier is very representative. You get that, right? Right? And yes, despite ALL that, i have an open mind. What keeps being forgotten here is the cast iron motive for getting it done before December 31st 1969. I know you weren't around then, i know you probably think all this world superpower domination thing is totally irrelevant, but there IS still the teeniest chance that men didn't actually walk on the moon. Dare or no dare. Please don't make me repeat this for the fifteenth time on page 104!!

Geezer

And you can repeat until the cows come home that you are open minded, that is not the issue. You stated that you could post a link to site that had reasonable evidence, and that is all I have asked you to do, in essence, but you have refused.

As for 1969, well I was around then, I wish I was younger, but I ain't . I don't really rememebr the first landing, but I sure do remember the later ones.

As for it being done just before the dealine was up, well I have worked for some very large organisations, I can tell you that hardly anything ever gets delivered before time is up, even when it's possible. To be honest, if they had done it in 1965, I would be more inclined to believe they had hoaxed it.

Geezer

OllyK

Just for TelBoy

TelBoy

Now they really ARE ******* nuts.

Geezer

So, let's get this straight. The flat earth society are fukcing nuts because they refuse to believe all the compelling evidence that the earth is round, and that it's all a huge conspiracy involving many many people, yet the people who who dismiss all the compelling evidence of the moon landings and think that many many people are involved in a huge conspiracy are not?

I'll try to figure that one out......

Geezer

TelBoy

I'm going to poke needles into my eyes soon.

Because, Geezer, i can see that the Earth is not flat. I've even been high enough to see the curve of the Earth. It's measurable. It's provable. It's observable. The scientists can throw the kitchen sink at the moon landing doubters, and they have, but they can't prove man walked on the moon.