Thread: Proof of Apollo 11 Fraud Lunar Landing

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

That's just what the government wants you to think.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's just what the government wants you to think.

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!

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!!!! I will see if admin has it logged!]

Abuse of power! Conspiracy!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut while drunk on the job

*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.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What did you think was convincing in the video?

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.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

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.

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).