BUTTHOLE SURFER wrote:
Capricorn 1
Starring the Juice!!!
In the movie, it was never disclosed whether the bad guys murdered the astronauts, including OJ's character, that they caught.
BUTTHOLE SURFER wrote:
Capricorn 1
Starring the Juice!!!
In the movie, it was never disclosed whether the bad guys murdered the astronauts, including OJ's character, that they caught.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
GlobalView1 wrote:
Nice! Appreciate the out-of-this-world punniness.
But seriously, I am not a conspiracy theory champion by any measure (people like to talk waaaay too much to maintain big secrets) but the CBS-TV broadcast from the first landing is highly suspicious. Lots of relying on audio for "proof", + these weird simulations of what was supposedly going on, and finally some really sketchy-looking images of the astronauts leaving the LM. It just looks phoney as hell.
As earlier posters pointed out, it is not even remotely possible that it could have been kept a secret. Many would have notified a reporter if it was even suggested.
Who do you think shot JFK?
Well if the government can cover up the aliens landing in Roswell NM they can certainly fake a moon landing.
Science bro wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
This sort of response is why skepticism remains. If there's actual proof, just show the facts, don't go running off to occam's razor like it's a question of science rather than history.
It's full of fallacies anyhow. A fake wouldn't need to be secret forever, only for a few years until the propaganda boost paid off. A fake also bore no risk of catastrophic failure causing dead astronauts and a long and crippling investigation of NASA. Apollo 13 (assuming it was real) proved that this risk was very high, making a real mission a genuine "moon or bust" thing.
That's what happened to the space shuttles. 40% of the fleet was ultimately destroyed in flight with entire crews lost, causing the fleet to spend years parked and ultimately retired. The program was so expensive that NASA was left without any heavy-lift rocket capable of manned launches.
And almost 50 years later none of the thousands and thousands of people that worked on Apollo, either at NASA or at the aerospace companies that built the systems, have given any indication that it was not actually real.
Catastrophic failure of a fake is getting caught, which would have been far far worse in the space race than 3 dead astronauts.
You're right. It is about evidence, which there is tons of. The decent stages of the 6 successful landings and other equipment are still on the moon and have been verified to be there. We have moon rocks and dust samples brought back by the missions. They left laser reflectors there on the moon.
Oh, and STS did not have a 40% failure rate. There were 135 shuttle missions and 2 catastrophic failures. NASA didn't stop at 7 dead astronauts, or even 14. They kept flying the shuttles for years after both Challenger and Columbia disasters.
+1
Looking to basketball players, football players or boxers for words of wisdom is worse than looking to internet message boards for words of wisdom. Considering most NBA players don't graduate college and those that are in school typically have an SAT score 200 points below the average of the rest of the student body, I wouldn't consider basketball players as much of a resource on anything other than how to play basketball (or how to be born extremely tall).
Let's go thru the non-"evidence" of Wikipedia (the only evidence that exists, it seems by LRC boffins) one by one. Clearly they don't understand how to make a logical argument. My comments in italics.
SELENE photographs.,
" On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. "
"The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres. "
Poor resolution, and the "reconstruction" method is open to debate.
Chandrayaan-1,
"Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site"
Same as above. Also, the "Apollo 15 site" could just be where an *unmanned* space probe landed (timed to coincidence with Hollywood's A-15 of course). The evidential value of this (or above) as proof of *man on moon* is essentially zero.
Chang'e 2
"It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified"
This doesn't even qualify as anything?!
Observers of all missions
All of these fail to "observe" whether the missions were actually *manned* ... duh!
Independent research consistent with NASA claims
Consistency doesn't imply actuality, but I'll humor you.
Existence and age of Moon rocks
"The rocks returned by Apollo are very close in composition to the samples returned by the independent Soviet Luna programme."
Indeed, so independent that it didn't even need to be *manned*! Why didn't USA think of that, and save the cost and risk factors?
Retroreflectors
Just as before, famed Soviet Luna program (unmanned) did these too... Net evidential value for *manned* moon landing, evidently zero (0.00).
Photographs (of artifacts/debris left)
Again, there's zero reason these couldn't be from *unmanned* moon probe mission, which everyone admits have occurred
Ultraviolet photographs
Becoming a broken record, no reason for the UV camera of "Apollo 16" to be *manned*
Apollo missions tracked by non-NASA personnel (Observers of all missions)
Isn't this category redundant with the above?
Plans
"As new research facilities such as orbiters and telescopes are built, the question arises whether they can see Apollo artifacts on the Moon."
As above, "Apollo artifacts" could just be from *unmanned* space probes
" In 2002, astronomers suggested using the Very Large Telescope to search for the landing sites."
Sixteen years later, they still haven't obliged this... not that it would prove a *manned* mission(s) anyway...
"THE REFUSAL OF THE U.S. GOV. TO SEND MEN "BACK" TO THE MOON; IS ALSO UNIQUE - THE WORST BLOWN PUBLIC RELATIONS OPPORTUNITY IN HISTORY:"
There is not point in going back to the moon. There's nothing there. It cost money to do. There are better things to spend the money on.
It's like taking a trip to Bakersfield. You've done it once. There's nothing more to be gained by going back again and again and again.
And almost 50 years later none of the thousands and thousands of people that worked on Apollo, either at NASA or at the aerospace companies that built the systems, have given any indication that it was not actually real.
Why would any of them know? Do you think the CIA/NASA is *that* dumb? It's easy to send up an unmanned probe to moon, while at same time claiming said probe *is* manned to outside world .... Only select Astronauts (USA) and the Hollywood studios and would know, and as we see with #MeToo Weinstein, they are famous for keeping things hush-hush.
So your contention is that we landed on the moon but with unmanned spacecraft? Hey, it's progress to get you to that point - I wasn't sure you'd even admit that there is a moon.
blort wrote:
There is not point in going back to the moon. There's nothing there. It cost money to do. There are better things to spend the money on.
It's like taking a trip to Bakersfield. You've done it once. There's nothing more to be gained by going back again and again and again.
Why was there a reason to do it once? (And they claim to have done it SIX TIMES, during wind-up period of Nixon)
This is a stronger argument than the "we've been there, done that, no need to do it a 7th time".
Considering that the Wikipedia evidence is zilch-o, and the perverse argument that rules the LRC roost is that "too big for a conspiracy" (not true at all), I can only admire those who planned this 50+ years ago. They were the true revolutionaries of thought.
tratlyre wrote:
So your contention is that we landed on the moon but with unmanned spacecraft?
No one disputes that Soviet Luna project landed multiple times on Earth's moon.
From your favorite "source" for pravda:
Luna 1 (January 1959) missed its intended impact with the Moon and became the first spacecraft to fall into orbit around the Sun.
Luna 2 (September 1959) mission successfully hit the Moon's surface, becoming the first man-made object to reach the Moon.
Luna 9 (February 1966) became the first probe to achieve a soft landing
How this is relevant to USA's Neil Armstrong fable?
comedyrelief wrote:
Looking to basketball players, football players or boxers for words of wisdom is worse than looking to internet message boards for words of wisdom. Considering most NBA players don't graduate college and those that are in school typically have an SAT score 200 points below the average of the rest of the student body, I wouldn't consider basketball players as much of a resource on anything other than how to play basketball (or how to be born extremely tall).
You got trolled by Curry.
Not a Flag Implantator wrote:
tratlyre wrote:
So your contention is that we landed on the moon but with unmanned spacecraft?
No one disputes that Soviet Luna project landed multiple times on Earth's moon.
From your favorite "source" for pravda:
Luna 1 (January 1959) missed its intended impact with the Moon and became the first spacecraft to fall into orbit around the Sun.
Luna 2 (September 1959) mission successfully hit the Moon's surface, becoming the first man-made object to reach the Moon.
Luna 9 (February 1966) became the first probe to achieve a soft landing
How this is relevant to USA's Neil Armstrong fable?
I guarantee you that some on this thread would dispute that anyone has ever landed anything on the moon - some don't think satellites exist.
If you want to believe we landed on the moon and came back all with unmanned equipment, that's your prerogative. Unfortunately we couldn't get third party evidence of someone taking selfies with Neil up there because we beat everyone to the punch.
comedyrelief wrote:
Looking to basketball players, football players or boxers for words of wisdom is worse than looking to internet message boards for words of wisdom. Considering most NBA players don't graduate college and those that are in school typically have an SAT score 200 points below the average of the rest of the student body, I wouldn't consider basketball players as much of a resource on anything other than how to play basketball (or how to be born extremely tall).
Finally, a post that suggests Curry might be a moran.
comedyrelief wrote:
Looking to basketball players, football players or boxers for words of wisdom is worse than looking to internet message boards for words of wisdom. Considering most NBA players don't graduate college and those that are in school typically have an SAT score 200 points below the average of the rest of the student body, I wouldn't consider basketball players as much of a resource on anything other than how to play basketball (or how to be born extremely tall).
What do you consider runners to be a resource for words of wisdom on?
Clearly they don't understand how to make a logical argument. My comments in italics.
Exactly, just the point Bad Wigins is making.
Just because you are correct, doesn't mean you can convince via a sloppy argument.
If you want to believe we landed on the moon and came back all with unmanned equipment, that's your prerogative. Unfortunately we couldn't get third party evidence of someone taking selfies with Neil up there because we beat everyone to the punch.
1969 Neil-selfies are already available from Hollywood (or possibly South London location).
blort wrote:
"THE REFUSAL OF THE U.S. GOV. TO SEND MEN "BACK" TO THE MOON; IS ALSO UNIQUE - THE WORST BLOWN PUBLIC RELATIONS OPPORTUNITY IN HISTORY:"
There is not point in going back to the moon. There's nothing there. It cost money to do. There are better things to spend the money on.
It's like taking a trip to Bakersfield. You've done it once. There's nothing more to be gained by going back again and again and again.
You took a trip to Bakersfield? I've driven through it about 50 times and never stopped. Before the end of the Cold War, a native told me it was a good place to live because it would never be nuked.
Officialdb wrote:
Science bro wrote:
You're right. It is about evidence, which there is tons of. The decent stages of the 6 successful landings and other equipment are still on the moon and have been verified to be there. We have moon rocks and dust samples brought back by the missions. They left laser reflectors there on the moon.
+1
Yet another "+1" troll who doesn't understand logic of "man on moon" proof conjunction.
Bad Wigins must be wetting himself over the hilarity.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
blort wrote:
It's like taking a trip to Bakersfield. You've done it once. There's nothing more to be gained by going back again and again and again.
You took a trip to Bakersfield? I've driven through it about 50 times and never stopped. Before the end of the Cold War, a native told me it was a good place to live because it would never be nuked.
^^^^ Caricatures anti-hoax believers as your typical fat_cat limo liberals from Big Cities who can't care less about Jane & Joe America in drive-thru country, even while indoctrinating their schools with Neil & Buzz propaganda.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
let us think this through wrote:
How did they set up the cameras on the moon and live stream it to the earth so easily and how could they so easily call richard nixon on the moon? All of stuff don't add up.
I dunno, I wasn't an engineer working on the project. How bout you ask Buzz yourself, see what he says. He'd probably know.
Yep, appeal to "higher authority" to hide actuated ignorance.
Without recourse to so-called "Buzz" to continue this hoaxy narrative, will it just dissipate to dust?