Re: Moon Landings Faked?
There are no inconsistent shadows in any of the photos. All shadows in all of the photos are consistent with a single point source of light 93 million miles away.
aphh":2g26v43g said:
There are no inconsistent shadows in any of the photos. All shadows in all of the photos are consistent with a single point source of light 93 million miles away.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
This forum isn't run by the government, it's a privately owned forum. The mods can censor whatever they want. :roll:
Skibo1219":28tp16cb said:
This forum isn't run by the government, it's a privately owned forum. The mods can censor whatever they want. :roll:
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Now that the profanity has been cleaned up, since I assume it is I that you are ranting at, I will reply.
In reality, other moderators may decide that your offenses warrent a temporary ban, but I won't do that since your irrational ire seems to be aimed at me. BTW, if it's aimed at the other Wayne, please clear up that point
Actually, any poster here has the right to jump on any idea they want to. That's why it's a discussion board. And yes, many users here are sick and tired of "hit and run" posts. We are an intelligent discussion board, and such posts, while permitted, are darn annoying. Do you know what the definition of hit and run posts is? It has nothing to do with contridicting ideas...rather it is new users who come in, post a pile of garbage, then never come back to discuss the issue.
Lots of foolishness in 2 sentences. First of all, if users are driven away by having their ideas challenged, then SDC is not the place for them. Ideas get challenged here all the time. That's how people learn.
You accusation that I "OVER moderate" posts is patently false. I never (well, your profanity filled post was an exception) moderate posts. I do moderate the various forums to keep the discussion on topic; both in reference to the subject of the forum, and that posts are related to the discussion of the topic in the thread. Like it or not, that is the function of a moderator.
There is no censorship here, merely redirection into the appropriate places for discussion.
As for the talk of amendments, perhaps you should actually read the Bill of Rights. It says:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice the part (which I highlighted for your edification) that it refers to Congress passing laws, and has nothing to do with a privately owned bulletin board. With that said, SDC is quite tolerant of "off the grid" theories and opinions. A lot of other sites bansish such foolishness. Here, we tolerate it, but in in the appropriate forum, and either discuss it or make fun of it, as is our right.
It is quite apparent you have never really read through the site (it takes quite a few hours, and requires you pay attention). There is no doublespeak, just a clear analysis of the hoax clains with undeniable refutation.
Fake or not? You rail against the point of this topic, yet say fake or not? :roll:
Hey I'm no big fan of govenment coverups. I grew up during the Nixon era!
But the level of conspiracy required to protect a moon hoax, involving hundreds of thousands of people, dozens of governments (including the Soviets, who had the means to discover, and the motive to expose a US hoax) makes the whole idea of a hoax totally absurd.
Wayne (Meteor Wayne, that is)
Now that the profanity has been cleaned up, since I assume it is I that you are ranting at, I will reply.
In reality, other moderators may decide that your offenses warrent a temporary ban, but I won't do that since your irrational ire seems to be aimed at me. BTW, if it's aimed at the other Wayne, please clear up that point
Skibo1219":2ni7nmmd said:
Actually, any poster here has the right to jump on any idea they want to. That's why it's a discussion board. And yes, many users here are sick and tired of "hit and run" posts. We are an intelligent discussion board, and such posts, while permitted, are darn annoying. Do you know what the definition of hit and run posts is? It has nothing to do with contridicting ideas...rather it is new users who come in, post a pile of garbage, then never come back to discuss the issue.
Lots of foolishness in 2 sentences. First of all, if users are driven away by having their ideas challenged, then SDC is not the place for them. Ideas get challenged here all the time. That's how people learn.
You accusation that I "OVER moderate" posts is patently false. I never (well, your profanity filled post was an exception) moderate posts. I do moderate the various forums to keep the discussion on topic; both in reference to the subject of the forum, and that posts are related to the discussion of the topic in the thread. Like it or not, that is the function of a moderator.
There is no censorship here, merely redirection into the appropriate places for discussion.
As for the talk of amendments, perhaps you should actually read the Bill of Rights. It says:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice the part (which I highlighted for your edification) that it refers to Congress passing laws, and has nothing to do with a privately owned bulletin board. With that said, SDC is quite tolerant of "off the grid" theories and opinions. A lot of other sites bansish such foolishness. Here, we tolerate it, but in in the appropriate forum, and either discuss it or make fun of it, as is our right.
It is quite apparent you have never really read through the site (it takes quite a few hours, and requires you pay attention). There is no doublespeak, just a clear analysis of the hoax clains with undeniable refutation.
Fake or not? You rail against the point of this topic, yet say fake or not? :roll:
Hey I'm no big fan of govenment coverups. I grew up during the Nixon era!
But the level of conspiracy required to protect a moon hoax, involving hundreds of thousands of people, dozens of governments (including the Soviets, who had the means to discover, and the motive to expose a US hoax) makes the whole idea of a hoax totally absurd.
Wayne (Meteor Wayne, that is)
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
You just need to keep your language clean and not insult other members. We don't censor ideas here; we're adamantly against that. However, we do need to make sure everybody has a fair chance to speak their mind, and that means making sure people play nice together. Thank you for your cooperation.
You just need to keep your language clean and not insult other members. We don't censor ideas here; we're adamantly against that. However, we do need to make sure everybody has a fair chance to speak their mind, and that means making sure people play nice together. Thank you for your cooperation.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
One final point. It is mentioned (in a couple of different ways) in the "Community Guidelines" that moderator actions are not to be discussed / debated within the forums. The Guidelines indicate how concerns can be legitimately raised, and those procedures should be followed.
Note that this applies not only to discussions of specific incidents/moderators, but also to general statements of the
form:
"The moderators here engage in widespread ..."
"Moderator XYZ has been unfairly targeting me .."
If you have a concern, raise it through the identified channels. It will definitely be heard and acted upon as warranted.
Thanks,
Wayne
One final point. It is mentioned (in a couple of different ways) in the "Community Guidelines" that moderator actions are not to be discussed / debated within the forums. The Guidelines indicate how concerns can be legitimately raised, and those procedures should be followed.
Note that this applies not only to discussions of specific incidents/moderators, but also to general statements of the
form:
"The moderators here engage in widespread ..."
"Moderator XYZ has been unfairly targeting me .."
If you have a concern, raise it through the identified channels. It will definitely be heard and acted upon as warranted.
Thanks,
Wayne
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Here here, Wayne. Cal's right too. We all slip up on our emotional side. I went crazy once; off the wall, saving the world, loony.
Here here, Wayne. Cal's right too. We all slip up on our emotional side. I went crazy once; off the wall, saving the world, loony.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Naah, other than the fact that your profanity laden rant made you look foolish, it was fine
Skibo1219":3q0plhq1 said:
Naah, other than the fact that your profanity laden rant made you look foolish, it was fine
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Astronomers should be the highest respected scientists of all. How and what happened behind closed doors during the cold war. Then thirty-five years later, when somebody asks why, you don’t go to the blind astronomer that risked his life for his country—for the betterment of science, no less. Balony. Real, fake, reactionary coverup, who cares? Today is 23JULY2009, and every astronomer from every capable country in the world has served his country and his earth to the upmost.
Astronomers should be the highest respected scientists of all. How and what happened behind closed doors during the cold war. Then thirty-five years later, when somebody asks why, you don’t go to the blind astronomer that risked his life for his country—for the betterment of science, no less. Balony. Real, fake, reactionary coverup, who cares? Today is 23JULY2009, and every astronomer from every capable country in the world has served his country and his earth to the upmost.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Apologies to all for the profanity, it was uncalled for and only 1 comment was directed at MeteorWayne, which is also unfounded, sorry. The rest of "you" was just a generalization. Everytime I visit new boards that I want to be part off, I see people attack hit and run posters, and it does happen everywhere you go there is no denying it. What I find, offensive is that established members attack a prospect, so what if they only post once a week or once a month, its just downright rude to attack them, no matter if they leave the discussion unfinished or not.
Yes I was a "tad" miffed, since everything is open to discussion how about everyone stop flaming those with different opinions and beliefs? I did spend quite a lot of time at Clavius.org and read about a third of the pages and went thru several pics and really looked at them. If it appeared that I railed against the topic, it was unintentional. There is a lot of evidence that can be looked at and explained many ways, and if the source is not 100% forthcomming in explanations that always leaves doubts in my mind. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. Now that my face is full of pie, anyone want some? :twisted:
Apologies to all for the profanity, it was uncalled for and only 1 comment was directed at MeteorWayne, which is also unfounded, sorry. The rest of "you" was just a generalization. Everytime I visit new boards that I want to be part off, I see people attack hit and run posters, and it does happen everywhere you go there is no denying it. What I find, offensive is that established members attack a prospect, so what if they only post once a week or once a month, its just downright rude to attack them, no matter if they leave the discussion unfinished or not.
Yes I was a "tad" miffed, since everything is open to discussion how about everyone stop flaming those with different opinions and beliefs? I did spend quite a lot of time at Clavius.org and read about a third of the pages and went thru several pics and really looked at them. If it appeared that I railed against the topic, it was unintentional. There is a lot of evidence that can be looked at and explained many ways, and if the source is not 100% forthcomming in explanations that always leaves doubts in my mind. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. Now that my face is full of pie, anyone want some? :twisted:
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Man, I put a lot of energy into that rant, boy am i tired. :lol:
MeteorWayne":2azwl4fv said:Skibo1219":2azwl4fv said:
Naah, other than the fact that your profanity laden rant made you look foolish, it was fine
Man, I put a lot of energy into that rant, boy am i tired. :lol:
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
One reason I kind of sort of like this site is becacue the Gods keep out most of the wankers while keeping the best of free ideas sacred. And if that isn't what it's all about, then f me.
One reason I kind of sort of like this site is becacue the Gods keep out most of the wankers while keeping the best of free ideas sacred. And if that isn't what it's all about, then f me.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
I've studied the Apollo moon images a bit and for me it's obvious there was a photojob.
For example, in Apollo 11 images there are no vistas or backgrounds at all in the images. Vistas and sceneries only appeared in later missions, as if the imaging techniques got progressively better.
This is most likely a created illusion, that technology got better for later missions allowing larger shots to be taken. In reality the cameras used were the same, so in actuality it was the techonology for the photojob that improved allowing different foregrounds and backgrounds to be used for a image.
junkheap":37lvdzr2 said:
I've studied the Apollo moon images a bit and for me it's obvious there was a photojob.
For example, in Apollo 11 images there are no vistas or backgrounds at all in the images. Vistas and sceneries only appeared in later missions, as if the imaging techniques got progressively better.
This is most likely a created illusion, that technology got better for later missions allowing larger shots to be taken. In reality the cameras used were the same, so in actuality it was the techonology for the photojob that improved allowing different foregrounds and backgrounds to be used for a image.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Well study on guy, I had 3 family members that worked for NASA back in those days, 1 at NASA Langley, VA and 2 others that worked at JSC and 1 of those 2 worked in mission controll itself, all 3 are retired now but the moon landings were real, nothing was faked at all peroid. So you keep on wasting your time trying to prove your imaging techniques and I will sit back and laugh at all of it.... Just my 2 cents....
aphh":8kgxkn4q said:
Well study on guy, I had 3 family members that worked for NASA back in those days, 1 at NASA Langley, VA and 2 others that worked at JSC and 1 of those 2 worked in mission controll itself, all 3 are retired now but the moon landings were real, nothing was faked at all peroid. So you keep on wasting your time trying to prove your imaging techniques and I will sit back and laugh at all of it.... Just my 2 cents....
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
aphh;
Perhaps you should consider that the first 3 missions were basically engineering tests, which landed in the flattest and safest places possible, and where they could only travel walking distance; that which could be covered in an hour or so.
The last 3 missions landed in more challenging terrain, and had a vehicle that allowed them to travel to craters and more mountanous areas....hence the "vistas"
MW
aphh;
Perhaps you should consider that the first 3 missions were basically engineering tests, which landed in the flattest and safest places possible, and where they could only travel walking distance; that which could be covered in an hour or so.
The last 3 missions landed in more challenging terrain, and had a vehicle that allowed them to travel to craters and more mountanous areas....hence the "vistas"
MW
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Debating whether the flights actually happened is simply distraction. The real question is why would the images be faked, what would be the reason to recreate the event for images?
For me the enthusiasm about the Apollo mission was lost as soon as I learned about the very strong Free Mason aspect, that was involved. You might be interested in learning, that besides the U.S. flag, they also planted a flag of the Free Masons.
I don't believe in secret societies, and especially I am allergic to secret societies controlling governments.
davcbow":q2tm59yr said:Well study on guy, I had 3 family members that worked for NASA back in those days, 1 at NASA Langley, VA and 2 others that worked at JSC and 1 of those 2 worked in mission controll itself, all 3 are retired now but the moon landings were real, nothing was faked at all peroid. So you keep on wasting your time trying to prove your imaging techniques and I will sit back and laugh at all of it.... Just my 2 cents....
Debating whether the flights actually happened is simply distraction. The real question is why would the images be faked, what would be the reason to recreate the event for images?
For me the enthusiasm about the Apollo mission was lost as soon as I learned about the very strong Free Mason aspect, that was involved. You might be interested in learning, that besides the U.S. flag, they also planted a flag of the Free Masons.
I don't believe in secret societies, and especially I am allergic to secret societies controlling governments.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Do you have a reliable link to that claim?
Edit: formatting
aphh":190qk0uu said:
Do you have a reliable link to that claim?
Edit: formatting
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
My parents both worked for Teledyne Ryan, the company that built the radar system for the LEM. As a child, I also watched the Pregnant Guppy aircraft carrying sub-assemblies of the Saturn V rocket regularly take off from Lindbergh Field here in San Diego. There were hundreds of companies involved in the Apollo project, and hundreds of thousands of employees. The notion that it was all a hoax would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. These conspiracy theorist people need to get a life!
davcbow":3gb47png said:Well study on guy, I had 3 family members that worked for NASA back in those days, 1 at NASA Langley, VA and 2 others that worked at JSC and 1 of those 2 worked in mission controll itself, all 3 are retired now but the moon landings were real, nothing was faked at all peroid. So you keep on wasting your time trying to prove your imaging techniques and I will sit back and laugh at all of it.... Just my 2 cents....
My parents both worked for Teledyne Ryan, the company that built the radar system for the LEM. As a child, I also watched the Pregnant Guppy aircraft carrying sub-assemblies of the Saturn V rocket regularly take off from Lindbergh Field here in San Diego. There were hundreds of companies involved in the Apollo project, and hundreds of thousands of employees. The notion that it was all a hoax would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. These conspiracy theorist people need to get a life!
What was the goal?
What was the goal? If the government (NASA) faked the landings, then to what purpose did it serve? What was the "return on the investment"? Enriching all those contractor corporations? Perception of power of the puppet masters?
Further, can any of the hoax proponents give any valid, testable theories on how 400,000 individuals working on the Apollo program could have been so kept in the dark. What, did they kill whistleblowers? How were we able to keep the Soviet Union quiet at the time? Imagine the PR the Reds could have gotten if they exposed it all as a fake - with "undeniable proof". But it didnt' happen. What you guys do is posit some "secret one world government" as the root cause. It's just more babble that can't be proven.
It's one thing to have an opinion on something, but to take something like this on faith it, in itself, becomes a religion. When the de-bunkers come around and point out all the fallacious arguments and present fact, all we get is either misdirection, or silence.
And the Masonic flag? It wasn't planted - however it is possible that, since a flag was presented to a Washington-area lodge, that it was, as reported by Hoagland, that it was carried by Armstrong to the moon. So you believe all the mumbo-jumbo about the Orion star alignments? Given the "allowable" error that Hoagland used, I'll bet one could come up with a "hit", such as Pollux, Procyon or Aldabaran over some significant structure or geological feature somewhere on Earth on many lift-offs, splash-downs, injection burns, etc. on the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Spacelab, STS or ISS missions. The shear numbers of possibilities - statistical chance - says it's gonna happen with a high probablility.
What was the goal? If the government (NASA) faked the landings, then to what purpose did it serve? What was the "return on the investment"? Enriching all those contractor corporations? Perception of power of the puppet masters?
Further, can any of the hoax proponents give any valid, testable theories on how 400,000 individuals working on the Apollo program could have been so kept in the dark. What, did they kill whistleblowers? How were we able to keep the Soviet Union quiet at the time? Imagine the PR the Reds could have gotten if they exposed it all as a fake - with "undeniable proof". But it didnt' happen. What you guys do is posit some "secret one world government" as the root cause. It's just more babble that can't be proven.
It's one thing to have an opinion on something, but to take something like this on faith it, in itself, becomes a religion. When the de-bunkers come around and point out all the fallacious arguments and present fact, all we get is either misdirection, or silence.
And the Masonic flag? It wasn't planted - however it is possible that, since a flag was presented to a Washington-area lodge, that it was, as reported by Hoagland, that it was carried by Armstrong to the moon. So you believe all the mumbo-jumbo about the Orion star alignments? Given the "allowable" error that Hoagland used, I'll bet one could come up with a "hit", such as Pollux, Procyon or Aldabaran over some significant structure or geological feature somewhere on Earth on many lift-offs, splash-downs, injection burns, etc. on the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Spacelab, STS or ISS missions. The shear numbers of possibilities - statistical chance - says it's gonna happen with a high probablility.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Only a distressed and agitated person would react like that to the claims of a "nutjob". Why was Aldrin agitated?
SpeedFreek":39tqo5lh said:
Only a distressed and agitated person would react like that to the claims of a "nutjob". Why was Aldrin agitated?
Proof?
I call misdirection, aphh!
You said - and I quote - "You might be interested in learning, that besides the U.S. flag, they also planted a flag of the Free Masons." Yet as undeniable proof of your assertion, you post a scan of a picture of Aldrin presenting a Masonic flag to a fellow Mason. That is not proof. As I stated earlier, at best it suggests that Aldrin brought a Masonic flag with him on the mission. That's all. You're reaching conclusions without supporting evidence. And that, my friend, is bad science.
I call misdirection, aphh!
You said - and I quote - "You might be interested in learning, that besides the U.S. flag, they also planted a flag of the Free Masons." Yet as undeniable proof of your assertion, you post a scan of a picture of Aldrin presenting a Masonic flag to a fellow Mason. That is not proof. As I stated earlier, at best it suggests that Aldrin brought a Masonic flag with him on the mission. That's all. You're reaching conclusions without supporting evidence. And that, my friend, is bad science.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Aldrin was agitated because, even though he was one of the first men to walk on the moon, years later he is being accused of helping to perpetrate a hoax, and he lost his temper when Bart Sibrel directly accused him of being "a liar and a coward". Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
aphh":yryz7uiu said:
Aldrin was agitated because, even though he was one of the first men to walk on the moon, years later he is being accused of helping to perpetrate a hoax, and he lost his temper when Bart Sibrel directly accused him of being "a liar and a coward". Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Re: Proof?
And I'm waiting for someone to pop up and assert that the cover of Hoagland's Dark Mars book is the proof... :mrgreen:
netarch":1c89l23d said:
And I'm waiting for someone to pop up and assert that the cover of Hoagland's Dark Mars book is the proof... :mrgreen:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
In the Milky Way, 3 intruder stars are 'on the run' — in the wrong direction- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
Does a cosmic 'glitch' in gravity challenge Albert Einstein's greatest theory?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 73
-
Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 32
-
-
-
India makes breakthrough by test-firing new 3D-printed rocket engine (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Warp drives' may actually be possible someday, new study suggests
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 33
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unveiling the Cosmic Archive: Hunting for Advanced Alien Civilizations
- Latest: Catastrophe
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram