Moon landing

[yathis]

Its human nature to believe in conspiracy theories

Some are just smarter then others.

[spwath]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 1:07 AM, Donut417 said:

Funny enough Mythbusters proved that Hollywood couldnt have fakes the landings. 

No, they proved that the moonlandings could have been real. Not that they had to be.

[Tech_Dreamer]

just  show them the geforce demo by tom Peterson  on global illumination done with  pcpers Ryan, i believe they did it on the 980 demo where they explained the staging theories replicated

[WindirBear]

9 hours ago, Mug said:

Linus is a reptile, he owns a company called Linus MEDIA group

Everyone in the media is a reptile under their human-looking skin

Therefore Linus = reptile

You're a cup

[TidaLWaveZ]

6 hours ago, Atmos said:

We're mostly not conspiracy theory bashers.

We just value logical conclusions reached through concrete evidence over hearsay and delusional writings.

 

I'm not saying the government doesn't lie. All of them do. All the time.

But when it would have been more difficult to fake the film as it was rather than just going to the moon, why on earth would we believe that it was faked?

Time and time again the biggest evidence about the moon landing being a hoax are

"The shadows don't align in some photos!"

"The flag was waving in the breeze."

"You can't see the stars"

"people wouldn't move like that on the moon!"

All of which have been debunked time and time again. Combine that with our inability at that time to continuously run a pre-recorded tape for as long as the live broadcasts were, and it just makes no sense why anyone would claim that it was faked. Hell, with an albeit expensive consumer telescope you can still see the damn equipment left up there from the first mission.

My comments weren't really geared toward the moon landing, as I said I don't really have any reservations in regards to it being real. I will say that I respect and approve of anyone questioning events/information, otherwise we don't get the proof to back up what we believe. Also in regards to science humanity probably only has a small grasp on the truth and what little we do know as scientific fact today may change tomorrow.

 

I'm talking about the vast amount of "tin foil hat" comments and criticisms on any post involving possible conspiracy(mostly government/corporations lying, spying, or influencing the masses). At this point anyone who takes the governments/big corporations word at face value is the delusional in my book.

[WkdPaul]

I think the underlying problem isn't the conspiracy theories or the people that believe them, after all, there's always going to be some core of people that will believe in those theories no matter what.

 

The problem, as @TidaLWaveZ noticed, seems to be with distrust of government. And seems like the bigger the distrust is getting, the more people we see believe in those theories.

 

As others have mentioned, if you do the correct research yourself, you'll easily prove those theories wrong.

 

Though I really think it's important to have doubts, questioning things is important, but so is critical thinking. If you're dismissing empirical evidence, then that's a problem.

[FosterGuy]

[straight_stewie]

On 4/18/2017 at 10:39 AM, Dan Castellaneta said:

The big reason I don't believe they were staged is that this was 1969. It would've been hard, even for broadcast TV, to make something believably staged that's as grand as a (or the, rather) moon landing. That and there's far more ways to prove it was real than it was fake.

This is probably the best and most widely understandable piece of evidence as to why the moon landing was not staged. Even given modern technology, a trained eye can easily tell whether the most photorealistic CG renderings are infact, CG renderings and not actual images.

Beyond the obvious fact that, in order to stage the moon landing, you would still have to build the Saturn boosters, the LEM, the CM, and the huge complexes and infrastructure all across the country, just to convince more than 400,000 people that actually worked on the project that they are, infact, actually working on a moon landing. This does not even touch upon the subject that yes, atleast the Saturn boosters and ground support equipment must have been functional in order to, well, launch them into space as the final step to convincing people that we actually went there.

At the point that you have to put all the effort, work, and money into building machines that can actually go to the moon, so as to be able to cover up the fact that it's staged, isn't it just easier, and safer, to actually use them to go to the moon?

[Atmos]

9 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

My comments weren't really geared toward the moon landing, as I said I don't really have any reservations in regards to it being real. I will say that I respect and approve of anyone questioning events/information, otherwise we don't get the proof to back up what we believe. Also in regards to science humanity probably only has a small grasp on the truth and what little we do know as scientific fact today may change tomorrow.

 

I'm talking about the vast amount of "tin foil hat" comments and criticisms on any post involving possible conspiracy(mostly government/corporations lying, spying, or influencing the masses). At this point anyone who takes the governments/big corporations word at face value is the delusional in my book.

The majority of conspiracies are absolute garbage, because we call them out for being so, doesn't make us wrong, and it doesn't mean we don't question the government.

There's a big difference between not believing government reports that a barely functional country is making WMDs en masse, and that Monsanto is purposefully forcing frogs to mutate genders and not just turning a blind eye to the after effects of their pesticides; or that jet fuel contains mind-control agents that spread across the world via chemtrails in the high atmosphere.

[VerticalDiscussions]

On 15/04/2017 at 6:38 AM, AshleyAshes said:

-snip-

Wish i had a telescope

 

[The Sloth]

16 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Wish i had a telescope

 

 

 

get one, try to find one for cheap at a garage sale. i was lucky enough to have one as a kid, my dad bought it at a garage sale.  

 

[SansVarnic]

On 4/15/2017 at 0:38 AM, AshleyAshes said:

What's funny is that any individual with a consumer grade telescope can just look upon the moon when it is out at night and actually see the landing sites and the materials that were left behind by the missions, all with their own eyes.

Yup, I have seen them myself.

There is a website (gimme a moment to find it if it still there) that list the locations of the landing sites and how to find them with a telescope.

 

*edit

Sky & Telescope

Edited April 21, 2017 by SansVarnic

[VerticalDiscussions]

15 hours ago, nerdslayer1 said:

-snip-

Where i live, portuguese dont activily participate\organize garage sales and i have a feeling most telescopes aint gonna be cheap on most resale websites, especially since they should be mostly for sale on the mainland (better weather and watching spots), so there will be shipping fees.

 

Nonetheless, i presume some telescopes wont be able to get close enough to the moon so that i could see the craters and large rocks in detail, so some digging would have to happen here? 

 

I wonder whats the max range a space magnifier could reach, commerciallu available ones at least.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Where i live, portuguese dont activily participate\organize garage sales and i have a feeling most telescopes aint gonna be cheap on most resale websites, especially since they should be mostly for sale on the mainland (better weather and watching spots), so there will be shipping fees.

 

Nonetheless, i presume some telescopes wont be able to get close enough to the moon so that i could see the craters and large rocks in detail, so some digging would have to happen here? 

 

I wonder whats the max range a space magnifier could reach, commerciallu available ones at least.

Unfortunately, after looking into the details a bit more, a commercially available consumer telescope is unlikely to have the resolution to make out any of the Moon Lander equipment in any detail.

 

See this Discover Magazine blogpost for a great explanation:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/#.WPtdXojyu70

 

You can definitely see some awesome Moon detail from a consumer telescope, but I doubt you'll make out any of the man-made equipment beyond them being shiny reflective dots.

 

Lasers, on the other hand, are where it's at. You can shoot a laser beam at the moon, which will hit a retro reflector positioned there by astronauts, and it'll bounce back to a receiving array, thus still proving that we were there.

[AkiraDaarkst]

On 4/15/2017 at 5:38 AM, AshleyAshes said:

What's funny is that any individual with a consumer grade telescope can just look upon the moon when it is out at night and actually see the landing sites and the materials that were left behind by the missions, all with their own eyes.

 

On 4/18/2017 at 3:16 PM, dalekphalm said:

Alex Jones has obviously never used an off-the-shelf telescope to look at the Moon, which can immediately provide evidence to prove him wrong.

 

 

On 4/21/2017 at 5:24 AM, Atmos said:

 Hell, with an albeit expensive consumer telescope you can still see the damn equipment left up there from the first mission.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, when you guys say you can see the moon landing sites and equipment left up there with a "consumer telescope" which telescopes are you guys talking about?  Are you guys talking about telescopes like these in the image below?  You might be able to observe the lunar landing sites with these but NONE of them will be able to show you the equipment or traces of the landing left up there.  The American flag, the lunar rover, etc. are too small and the distance from the surface of the Earth to the Lunar surface roughly 380,000 kilometers.  These consumer telescopes do not have the necessary resolving power.

[AkiraDaarkst]

21 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

This is probably the best and most widely understandable piece of evidence as to why the moon landing was not staged. Even given modern technology, a trained eye can easily tell whether the most photorealistic CG renderings are infact, CG renderings and not actual images.

Beyond the obvious fact that, in order to stage the moon landing, you would still have to build the Saturn boosters, the LEM, the CM, and the huge complexes and infrastructure all across the country, just to convince more than 400,000 people that actually worked on the project that they are, infact, actually working on a moon landing. This does not even touch upon the subject that yes, atleast the Saturn boosters and ground support equipment must have been functional in order to, well, launch them into space as the final step to convincing people that we actually went there.

At the point that you have to put all the effort, work, and money into building machines that can actually go to the moon, so as to be able to cover up the fact that it's staged, isn't it just easier, and safer, to actually use them to go to the moon?

Mitchell and Webb

 

[ARikozuM]

On 4/16/2017 at 1:07 AM, AshleyAshes said:

Going back to my previous point in pointing out that simple consumer grade telescopes an see the landing sites and the materials that remained behind from the mission.  So they wouldn't just have to make a movie on earth; They'd also have to go to the moon to plant the evidence to support the fake story.

Unless we live in a bubble where the sky is photoshopped... 

 

#CustomRobo

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Mitchell and Webb

-snip-

lmao - I could almost believe that

 

BTW, I prefer:

Spoiler

and

 

 

[Mug]

On 4/21/2017 at 2:09 PM, wkdpaul said:

The problem, as @TidaLWaveZ noticed, seems to be with distrust of government. And seems like the bigger the distrust is getting, the more people we see believe in those theories.

The credibility gap has pretty much always existed. I think it's just a part of the American mindset at this point. 

[Misanthrope]

There is no belief required: you can actually point a fucking laser at a certain point at the moon, measure the time it takes to be reflected back, calculate the distance traveled via the speed of the laser vs time and determine exactly how far away is it which is consistent with all recorded science.

 

It is actually 100% observable and verifiable and henceforth not subject to discussion at all.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

There is no belief required: you can actually point a fucking laser at a certain point at the moon, measure the time it takes to be reflected back, calculate the distance traveled via the speed of the laser vs time and determine exactly how far away is it which is consistent with all recorded science.

 

It is actually 100% observable and verifiable and henceforth not subject to discussion at all.

Yeah but the big pharma conspiracy to fool us all into believing the physics of the speed of light! It's all a big coverup! /s

[Misanthrope]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Yeah but the big pharma conspiracy to fool us all into believing the physics of the speed of light! It's all a big coverup! /s

We're breaking the conditioniiiiiiiing!!!

 

[Mug]

3 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Mitchell and Webb

 

The conspiracy theory ones are my favourites, my other faves are:

• Linden trees smell of cum
• The vegetarian one where he asks to eat the cat
• Brain surgery Vs. rocket science
• "Are we the bad guys?"
• Avocado Bathroom
• Grammar Nazi

[AkiraDaarkst]

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

lmao - I could almost believe that

 

BTW, I prefer:

  Reveal hidden contents

and

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Mug said:

The conspiracy theory ones are my favourites, my other faves are:

• Linden trees smell of cum
• The vegetarian one where he asks to eat the cat
• Brain surgery Vs. rocket science
• "Are we the bad guys?"
• Avocado Bathroom

My top fav is Are We The Baddies but all their videos are halirious.

[gcubed]

On 4/21/2017 at 1:24 AM, Atmos said:

...

 

All of which have been debunked time and time again. Combine that with our inability at that time to continuously run a pre-recorded tape for as long as the live broadcasts were, and it just makes no sense why anyone would claim that it was faked. Hell, with an albeit expensive consumer telescope you can still see the damn equipment left up there from the first mission.

The first mission was the only mission. The first mission went to the moon to plant the evidence for all the faked subsequent missions. /nod