Completely Denied Conspiracy
-
In response to theory number 9, they may well have had a camera that was remote controlled from the Earth (which seems pretty unlikely anyway), but that dosent explain how there was already a camera on the surface watching them land during the famous "One giant leap for mankind" moment. Also, there seems to be a lack of flying dust from the landing (unless they waited a while before getting out).
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Lloyd Atkinson wrote:
Also, there seems to be a lack of flying dust from the landing (unless they waited a while before getting out).
Once they landed, there was a 7 hour delay before they left the capsule...your other point has been andwered elsewhere.
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
Dust in the landers feet (Lack Thereof) Photos from two different missions hundres of miles from each other with the same background. The fact that given the sheer number of photos the astronauts would have to be taking one every 3 seconds, all perfect, all focussed, all centered on what they were trying to snap, in a clumsy spacegloved hand and a camera with no viewfinder. And the main one, they couldn't go back today with 40 years of Tech Improvement. Been to the moon? Pah!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
Please tell me you're not serious. X|
-
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
As regards the light source/shadows (number 5) the sun is one light source. Isn't the earth another? Also, Mythbusters[^] looked at this and, as I recall, concluded that the way shadows are cast is influenced by the terrain as well as the light source.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
As regards the light source/shadows (number 5) the sun is one light source. Isn't the earth another? Also, Mythbusters[^] looked at this and, as I recall, concluded that the way shadows are cast is influenced by the terrain as well as the light source.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Mythbusters is not a source of scientific truth. They are a pair of grotesquely hirsuit special effects doods. Sure, nice guys and entertaining, but they lack the qualifications to make statements that a court would accept.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
Please tell me you're not serious. X|
I am sceptical. There is enough doubt to ensure I keep an open mind. When the only source of proof is from the people who claim it to be true there must be room for conspiracy. Until a return mission by another nation shows proof I shall have my doubts. I don't believe in god simply because bronze age goatherders invented a story, so I won't fall into the faith in Nasa trap either.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
I am sceptical. There is enough doubt to ensure I keep an open mind. When the only source of proof is from the people who claim it to be true there must be room for conspiracy. Until a return mission by another nation shows proof I shall have my doubts. I don't believe in god simply because bronze age goatherders invented a story, so I won't fall into the faith in Nasa trap either.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
What doubt? :confused: All of the 'problems' with the evidence for the moon landing on further examination just support the idea of a genuine event.
-
I am sceptical. There is enough doubt to ensure I keep an open mind. When the only source of proof is from the people who claim it to be true there must be room for conspiracy. Until a return mission by another nation shows proof I shall have my doubts. I don't believe in god simply because bronze age goatherders invented a story, so I won't fall into the faith in Nasa trap either.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
Mythbusters is not a source of scientific truth. They are a pair of grotesquely hirsuit special effects doods. Sure, nice guys and entertaining, but they lack the qualifications to make statements that a court would accept.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
but they lack the qualifications to make statements that a court would accept.
Well so do you but that doesn't usually stop you! In any case, still valid, none the less. To imagine the moon landings (which I sat up all night with my dad and watched) were faked is lunacy: it would be far too difficult a conspiracy to maintain. The only pity is that we have not been back.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
so I won't fall into the faith in Nasa trap either.
But this is science, so it must be true.
It's time for a new signature.
Which part of it is science?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
but they lack the qualifications to make statements that a court would accept.
Well so do you but that doesn't usually stop you! In any case, still valid, none the less. To imagine the moon landings (which I sat up all night with my dad and watched) were faked is lunacy: it would be far too difficult a conspiracy to maintain. The only pity is that we have not been back.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
But still my point remains, based on what evidence? I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying there is enough doubt as to it being possible that until it is proved to a scientific standard then it is only on Nasa's say so. I hope it is true, but it would be bad science to accept it as truth as it is not repeatable or provable empirically, and there are enough holes in the theory for it to fail any acceptance test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
Dust in the landers feet (Lack Thereof) Photos from two different missions hundres of miles from each other with the same background. The fact that given the sheer number of photos the astronauts would have to be taking one every 3 seconds, all perfect, all focussed, all centered on what they were trying to snap, in a clumsy spacegloved hand and a camera with no viewfinder. And the main one, they couldn't go back today with 40 years of Tech Improvement. Been to the moon? Pah!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
Stunned that this is necessary, but hey ho...[^]
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
Which part of it is science?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
Stunned that this is necessary, but hey ho...[^]
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
Care to elaborate?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
But still my point remains, based on what evidence? I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying there is enough doubt as to it being possible that until it is proved to a scientific standard then it is only on Nasa's say so. I hope it is true, but it would be bad science to accept it as truth as it is not repeatable or provable empirically, and there are enough holes in the theory for it to fail any acceptance test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
there are enough holes in the theory for it to fail any acceptance test
...except, of course, the test of William of Okham's ontology parsimony - Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate - although, personally, I believe Bertrand Russell derived a more usable version.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
Care to elaborate?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
Is it repeatable? Is the Theory backed up by independant evidence? Can it be shown that the results cannot be obtained via different means? Three Questions, the answer to each is NO. Therefore, not scientific.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
But still my point remains, based on what evidence? I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying there is enough doubt as to it being possible that until it is proved to a scientific standard then it is only on Nasa's say so. I hope it is true, but it would be bad science to accept it as truth as it is not repeatable or provable empirically, and there are enough holes in the theory for it to fail any acceptance test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
It ain't rocket science (:-)): if you have 2 light sources you will see 2 shadows. If the terrain is not flat the shadows will not be perfectly straight: they will follow the terrain and that can make them look as if they are wrong. The sun is 1 light source; the earth is another. Further, the different colors of dust on the surface will also reflect light and cast faint shadows as would sunlight/earth-light reflecting off the lunar lander.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Is that really representative of the Apollo conspiracy theories? Most of that stuff was totally idiotic - I mean 'Why is the flag waving'? I mean the only people who are going to take that seriously are complete fucking idiots.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
I mean the only people who are going to take that seriously are complete f***ing idiots.
I've had to explain the basic laws of motion to far to many people who believed the crap here. None of it is convincing. Hell, I'd be more likely to believe the XKCD riff on it, 'The moon landing was shot in a soundstage on mars', at least that's interesting. Remember for a moment how much the average person knows and understands of the world. Now remember that somewhere in the realm of 50% of people know and understand less than that.
-
It ain't rocket science (:-)): if you have 2 light sources you will see 2 shadows. If the terrain is not flat the shadows will not be perfectly straight: they will follow the terrain and that can make them look as if they are wrong. The sun is 1 light source; the earth is another. Further, the different colors of dust on the surface will also reflect light and cast faint shadows as would sunlight/earth-light reflecting off the lunar lander.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Just for reference, in high school while arguing with someone who believed this I took a pencil, stood it on a table in one of the darker corners. Gasp, 3 shadows. There were 3 different light sources! I crumpled up some paper and placed it into one of the shadows, GASP! The shadow wasn't straight. This is no where close to rocket science.
-
Just for reference, in high school while arguing with someone who believed this I took a pencil, stood it on a table in one of the darker corners. Gasp, 3 shadows. There were 3 different light sources! I crumpled up some paper and placed it into one of the shadows, GASP! The shadow wasn't straight. This is no where close to rocket science.
This is the one that always amuses me as it is glaringly obvious: still, I'm glad we shed some light on the subject and brightened our day. :laugh:
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me