Printable View
Deterrance.Quote:
Originally Posted by CryoDragoon
Let us not forget the wars at the time.
Nuclear weapons and computers are brother and sister.
However, I would not suggest debating about the truth of it or not; none of us are truly involved in the matter. I just think it is interesting to scrutinize the data.
~
*sigh* UM, I know you know what I'm talking about. I was asking your opinion on some of the content in the video specifically. Some of the points made in the video? Anything? Any specific parts of it? (You know...the sort of response that you gave skysaw, just now??) Not rhetoric that could be used to denounce any video, without even looking at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by UM
The flag issue wasn't even brought up in this video, unless I just completely missed it, and that was the only thing you actually talked about, in detail.
But, now that skysaw got his reply, I got what I was asking for in the first place, so forget I said anything.
(See above)Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
[Edit by Oneironaut: SHIT!!! I hit EDIT instead of QUOTE!!!! SORRY, UM!!!! I will see if admin has it logged!]
Quote:
Howie (and all skeptics), would you mind commenting on the laser rangefinders? Everyone`s ignored it.
Oh and also, during the space race, NASA was willing to take bigger risks (both human and financial) to ensure that they would be the first to arrive on the Moon. Since americans have already "made their point", there really is no reason for them to have anymore manned missions there. Also regarding safety records, out of 12 maned Apollo missions, 2 ended in catastrophic failure. Out of 120 space shuttle missions, 2 also ended in catastrophic failure. I would say the record improved dramatically...
If you read my post I have chosen no side. Some relevant questions I had were addressed by solsky. Which the only part of my post he didn't quote would have made that more clear.
I later go on to post more on resolution and also counter arguments... but what ever.
I don't know enough to comment on laser rangefinders.
The United States I think would stop at almost nothing for reasons O'nus posted. We had to make it clear we were in control. That would be why i think.
I have witnessed that members do not come here to read other's comments. They come in here on the defensive to whichever side
they know to be true.
except O'nus ;)
Which is easier - faking a moon landing in front of an entire nation, or making a 10 minute youtube video showing the landing was faked?
[Edit by Oneironaut: SHIT!!! I hit EDIT instead of QUOTE!!!! SORRY, UM!!!! :shock: I will see if admin has it logged!]
Abuse of power! Conspiracy! :paranoid:
Skysaw talked about how the video was so asssertive yet so nonargumentative, which is exactly my point. If you want something more specific, I am talking about how for example the narrator shows footage of the astronauts trying to get a good film of Earth and plays audio of their talking about how they are doing that. She takes that and aggressively asserts the conclusion that they were deliberatedly trying to deceive the public with a false image. Although she talks a lot abou it, she never gives a clear explanation of the connection between the premise and the conclusion. How is trying to get a good image automatically the same as trying to get a false image? If you think she explains that, tell me how. I don't even know what argument to argue against since there wasn't one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut while drunk on the job
The thing about how the film changed from inside the capsule to outside of it was worthless. Cameras film up close and well lit stuff much better than stuff far away in the dark. I have seen that with my own video cameras.
What did you think was convincing in the video?
I didn't mean to sound aggressive or anything, skeptic really just means one who has doubts, which you expressed. It's also pretty obvious that whenever someone goes against anything mainstream with questionable arguments, people will get defensive. That's just the nature of conspiracy theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Yaaa I agree Spartiate :thumbup:
Theres one thing that bothers me; this mirror argument. I've heard about the mirror on the moon plenty of times and since I've never doubted the lunar landing, its been good enough for me but this video is awfully convincing and it makes me wonder; has anyone here actually seen this mirror, or bounced laser beams off of it? Everyone I've ever heard talk about it hasn't actually seen it for themselves. If NASA is lying, they could just as easily be lying about the mirror. Has anyone seen it or at least know someone else who has seen it for themselves?
Shit. Those Tudors must have been quite the scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
I was thinking something quite similar when I read that :P
Like many of the propaganda videos on Youtube, when you try to post a comment, you get a message that says, "comment pending approval". They only post comments that agree with them. That is why it looks so one-sided. I don't think they would do that if they didn't believe what they said could be torn apart by the actual experts.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
I just watched the video again, trying very hard to catch that narrator's point about the Earth image. Like I said earlier, it was pretty much all assertion. She said that if the camera had been completely enveloping the window, the Earth image would have looked different. Where in the world does she get that assertion? She also said that an arm got in the way a few times. How does she know it was an arm? And what did Neil Armstrong say to refute the possiblity that an arm could get in the way? He just said that the window was "completely filled up with a T.V. camera". Couldn't it be that without the camera actually touching the glass? Couldn't he have been talking about the image in the camera and not the physical location of the camera? And why would being 130,000 miles from Earth mean the camera would have to be touching the window to get the image they had? Cameras zoom in and zoom out, don't they? It looks to me like a bunch of strange assertion not backed by anything.
Actually, it would have been the Stewarts, if my history is correct... the Tudor dynasty ended in 1603 with the death of Queen Elizabeth I... just an FYI :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
LOL this one's better: http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages/billboards71b.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
That's just what the government wants you to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluefinger
Ooo~ I never thought of it that way... so you suspect that perhaps Queen Elizabeth I is an immortal, conquering the earth slowly over the ages in the political shadows? Alas, we are doomed to british imperialism! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You would need a pretty powerful laser and a way to analyze the telemetry. All I can do is get sources but any conspiracy theorists would conveniently claim that they are fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
As for the video, I didn't see any conclusive evidence whatsoever, the narrator just claims stuff the whole time.
That video makes me laugh. Especially the comments. But you know the funniest part? I could make people believe grass is blue with the right 'evidence' and witty wording.
I wouldn't say I found any of it "convincing," so much as I would say I found it interesting. I took the video at face value, looking at it objectively. With the way it was made, I'd say it looks pretty genuine, but I definitely wouldn't call myself convinced of its authenticity. In either case, I don't see anything in the video that I could just readily dismiss as false, without doing so on pure bias and/or a priori assumption that its just a hoax. If anything, the most it does is make me curious as to whether or not it's authentic. The least it does is make me wonder if (not assume) it is a complete fabrication.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
So you think the video is interesting and don't claim to be able to prove any of it false, but you found nothing in it convincing? It looks like you and I are in the same boat. A lot of other people in this thread agree with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Nice video. Personally I haven't heard much evidence about the fake moon landing, apart from this. A lot of tkdyo's points though weren't very convincing. At the moment I see both possibilities likely.
To me it just seems obvious. Take a bleeding picture of the flag on the moon, and footprints, and a blastmark, and that mirror, and all that. Won't that prove it? (As far as people trust the photographer).
Personally, I think the shot of Neil Armstrong in between the camera and the window with the Earth completely filling the window is pretty convincing. What do you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
That's a good point, whenever new evidence is added, skeptics dismiss it as more lies. In any case, we won't have cameras able to do that for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
At no point does anybody but the narrator mention that they are not in Earth orbit during that segment. Even when they say that "they are removing part of the crescent insert", I don't even see any difference :?.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I'm not saying there is nothing to that, but I don't understand how the narrator knew that was Neil Armstrong's arm, why saying that a window was "completely filled up by a T.V. camera" meant the camera had to be physically touching the window and not just capturing the whole window in the image, or how the narrator knew that if the camera were touching the window, Earth would have had a smaller image (especially considering how cameras can zoom in and out). Can anybody explain those claims and back them up with anything other than the narrator's assertions? I also don't get why they didn't bring in any experts to interview for that part of the documentary. They didn't show any official text or other documentation. They showed nothing that backs up the assertions. They just had a narrator saying things. They should do better than that when making such enormous claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
If the moon landing was really a fake, it would be one of the biggest trips I have ever come across. I would love to know that truth if it is the truth.
Nasa needed $$ to start up ! how do u think they could have done it without making the whole population believe they landed on moon? ahahaha.... i was watching soem clips which were shown world wide, people holdingtheyr hands with tears all around the world.
Not knowing that in 40 years people would have discovered that its fake. Gosh, how dare they ruin our pride just for the sake of $$.