Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

[doctle]

Like I suggested - they didn't need to tell the "50000".

And Apollo 13 never left the ground? NASA decided to add a little spice to the long running con to keep up viewing figures?

[Paul-R]

It's tragicomedy that the wilfully ignorant simply refuse to acknowledge let alone analyse and apply a degree of critical thinking to the abundance of evidence indicating they never set foot on the moon in '69, but instead promulgate the myriad of falsities and half-baked lies to muddle-up and confuse instead. That last video of a supposed filmmaker lighting expert is classic in that respect, for although his logic on shadows for instance is good he doesn't apply it to the clearly set-up studios shots of several examples of multiple light sources on various objects from Nasa's Apollo 11! That's called cherry picking. I noticed the total absence of lunar dust on the lunar landers foot though, did you, or did the fake astronauts clean them up pre photo shoot perhaps. As for the rest of it, making statements based on totally false premises is par for the course in their world of disinformation, call it their pastime, being seen to stay onside with their masters and kept on the payroll. Hookers have more integrity than these people.

Fragile minds just can't t handle the truth, ducking and diving, choosing to be led by paid liars and other omnipresent fraudsters desperate to protect their simulated worlds of fakery, cos life is just more acceptable that way I guess.



Desperately sad people are given potentially great powers of thought and senses but instead choose to be told what to think and see instead.

Carry On Daydreaming.

I could make all the same statements back at you for your opinion, frankly this thread is a bore now. It's way past any usefulness, it's bringing bad manners to the fore and the increase of intolerance being displayed here, as in the country at large, is worrying in the extreme.

I urge the staff to delete destructively this thread. Beyond any chance of undeleting. And it should be done as soon a possible. It brings no credit to this forum whatsoever.

[Hell Razor5543]

Paul, I agree. I am now formally requesting that this thread is closed, locked, killed, cremated, sealed in an urn, and then buried in the deepest cavity on this planet.

I am also going to request that Forum Moderators arrange to have TWO accounts. When they have their Moderator hat on they use the Moderator account, but when they are contributing as a normal Forum member they use their 'informal' account. That way it should be clear as to when it is a post by a person or an official post.

[myglaren]

Forum staff don't have any elevated status James. Our posts are no different than anyone else's.

[Hell Razor5543]

I am a member of another forum. THEY have set up two accounts for each of their Moderators. The Moderator account clearly shows it is such. The normal account does not have any indications that the user is also a Moderator. When a Moderator wants to informally contribute to a thread they do so using their normal account (and the Forum management team know this). However, when a thread needs official management that Moderator (or any other Moderator who feels there is a need) would switch to their Moderator account and contribute. That way all members know that THAT particular post is an official post (and, as such, is the official opinion of the Forum), and should be taken as such.

[doctle]

I don't think this thread should be locked. Perhaps rude or insulting posts could be deleted but it's an interesting discussion albeit with some members having their tongue firmly lodged in their cheek. Censoring debate in general is a very bad idea and a poor response to anyone/anything that you disagree with. We are mostly grown men on this site, people that exchange information on what is sometimes very difficult car repairs, repairs that require skills and intelligence. I don't think many here would consider themselves part of the snowflake generation. Surely we are above being offended by opinions (insults aren't opinions)

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall

[doctle]

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

― Voltaire,

[Paul-R]

At first I thought that the thread was a bit of a wind-up (and some posts certainly are!) but it is the malice in some posts that I find particularly distasteful. I still remain of the opinion that this thread is not good for the forum.

[GiveMeABreak]

Like I suggested - they didn't need to tell the "50000".

And Apollo 13 never left the ground? NASA decided to add a little spice to the long running con to keep up viewing figures?

I didn't say that - of course they left the flipping ground - that was visibly witnessed - but that's about all that was - they just didn't leave low earth orbit!

[mickthemaverick]

Time Gentlemen Please!!!
This topic has gone wildly off subject and is at risk of bringing the house into disrepute.
Lets get back to the sensible and enjoyable practice of sharing our thoughts and debating our differences but without resorting to the levels of personal insult.
I have no opinion as such even though I sat and watched the broadcast in the middle of the night in 1969 but even if I did it would not make the slightest bit of difference. We are in an exciting and worrying phase of development of our planet and there are far more significant issues to be debated than what did or didn't happen 50 years ago:
Will England win the cricket World cup?
Will Frank Lampard succeed at Chelsea?
Will Rory win the open?
Will Andy Murray win the doubles at Wimbledon?
Will the heavyweight boxing championship ever get unified?
Will Lewis Hamilton win a 6th world championship?
Will Citroen ever enter F1?
Who will be our next prime minister?
Will Monty Don win a flower show?
Can we solve the planet's pollution issues?

That lot should keep things lively for a bit!!

[GiveMeABreak]

I have made the position clear. This is the off-topic sub-forum:- precisely why the topic was moved here from the technical forum in the first place. Members are free to express their opinions on the topic or not. But it is not right to try to shout down a topic because it does not agree with the reader's viewpoint and that cannot be allowed to happen.

I have suggested that those who do not wish to contribute to the topic, refrain from doing so. Any posts not to do with the subject matter will be removed.

A cooling off period for this topic is in order for a while, so is was temporarily locked.

[Mandrake]

This is something that's fascinated me for years and I take quite an interest in space and more recently rocketry... (yes I stay up late sometimes just to watch a SpaceX launch... )

I can certainly see why conspiracy theorists get all excited over the idea that the moon landings were faked, however after looking into it for many years and reading a lot on both sides of the argument my conclusions are:

1) Quite a lot of the photographic evidence provided by NASA from the moon landings and on the way there and back has been visibly doctored (airbrushed etc) and a few of the photos are clearly completely staged/faked.

2) We did actually go to the moon as claimed and there is other overwhelming evidence (besides the doctored photos) that we did.

So why the apparent contradition ? While conspiracy theorists assume that any doctoring or faking of evidence is proof we didn't go, my position is that we did go but the doctoring of images was to cover up inconvienient things they found they didn't want people to see... interpret that as you will.

Another thing that strongly points toward going to the moon being real is that the whole point of going to the moon was for the Americans to beat the USSR - if it was all fakery (all Apollo missions ??) there is no way the USSR would have not known, (they have radar and ways to listen to and pinpoint the location of the apollo capsule enroute just like anyone else - even some ham radio operators listened in on the transmissions live) and if they knew they would have called the American's out on their BS.

But they never did, and 50 years later and despite the fall of the USSR there have been no leaked documents to even hint that the USSR thought there was any fakery involved. With Putins current antagonsim towards the West he would like nothing better than to chop the legs out from under the US when it is planning to go to the moon again by dropping the bombshell "by the way it was all faked the first time"....

So that's my opinion. Now for some science. The whole argument that the Van Allen belts are deadly and there is no safe way to get through them is BS - yes they are dangerous but you can go *around* them, (since they are equatorial) and do so quickly enough and at times when the radiation levels are low enough that you don't get a harmful dose of radiation in the few hours it takes to pass through them.

Just like you can take tours today through Chernobyl without any harm but nobody is allowed to live there permanently as the cumulative dose of a long stay would eventually be fatal. See the following video for a terrific deep dive into the science behind the van allen belt fallacy:



Great channel by the way, and quite a bit of other space stuff on it.

[GiveMeABreak]

This is what we need - some pointers for us to consider for or against

[bobins]

Now for some science. The whole argument that the Van Allen belts are deadly and there is no safe way to get through them is BS - yes they are dangerous but you can go *around* them, (since they are equatorial) and do so quickly enough and at times when the radiation levels are low enough that you don't get a harmful dose of radiation in the few hours it takes to pass through them.

Just like you can take tours today through Chernobyl without any harm but nobody is allowed to live there permanently as the cumulative dose of a long stay would eventually be fatal. See the following video for a terrific deep dive into the science behind the van allen belt fallacy:

As I've mentioned on FCF before, I spent 2 solid days in and around Chernobyl, staying in Pripyat overnight - including quite a few instances where my dose rate meter was well and truly in alarm mode*. For all of that, I got a higher cumulative dose and higher average dose on the flight back to the UK from Ukraine though highest peak dose was received within the exclusion zone.

On a point of order, people do live permanently within the exclusion zone (obviously not in the reactor complexes) - just not many of them !

*- though that obviously depends on what the alarm level was set at

[bobins]

Yesterday on Radio 4, and available on iPlayer:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006l9r


Variations on a Theme by Neil Armstrong
Drama
44 minutes

As we approach the anniversary of the moon landings, Michael Symmons Roberts takes a look at fake news through the lens of the conspiracy theories that this historical moment happened on a film set on earth. Variations on a theme by Neil Armstrong is a dark comedy, exploring what's real and what's fake in the way such news is communicated.