What happened on the moon [major update]

[Idoru]

As far as people claiming that any of these videos or sourses are unbiased; they arent. When the creator of these videos and sourses sits down and starts to do their research they dont have a blank mind. They have reasons for creating the videos and sources, they have an agenda. Similar to in science you make a hypothesis then you try and prove yourself right. The only difference is that in science you can be proved catagorically wrong. In things as abstract as conspiracy theories if you are proved wrong you can always come up with another piece of 'evidence' to stop yourself looking wrong.

[Vulcas]

*NOTE: I've edited my original post that started this thread to reflect my point better, as well as minimize confusion it caused for some people*
*NOTE: So, check back at the beginning of this thread on Page 1*

raleigh,

Thanks for bumping up the thread, so more people could see it. 

Oh, and Kixie, deprogramming = college. Watch the second video, it proves that moon landing = hoax. I guess it's better to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" than a "blind puppet manipulated by mass media and wishful thinking".

Idoru,

The difference is that it's much easier to label sources that question popular ideas as "conspiracy theories" and mock people, despite scientific evidence rather than look at the evidence itself. Unless I misunderstood you, the evidence provided in the video goes without quotes. You can call it "abstract", if you like but without providing anything to prove it as such, it does not make it so.

The evidence doesn't lie. People do but the evidence doesn't. Surely, you can think for yourself? I have not convinced myself of anything prior to researching this subject nor do I give into pressure of believing something to be true just because it's a popular idea. The only "agenda" I have is wanting to know the truth.

As you've noticed, some people here didn't even watch the second (and much better) video at all but already made up their minds because they find the thought to be uncomfortable, so they draw conclusions without actually watching it. And if you're going to have an opinion about my thread, at least have a decency to watch the videos I posted or get out (meant in a nicest way).

[zanzibar]

Conspiracy Theorist with religious agenda:  "Fact A!"

Viewer:  "Fact A?"

Me:  "Fact A is false.  See science."

Viewer:  "Source!"

Me:  [does work digging up links and articles] "Check it."

Viewer:  "Conspiracy!"

Me:  *sigh*

[Vulcas]

Hey, zanzi, thanks for posting something at all and keeping it alive.

I've made it clear that I have no religious agenda. If you are still confused, check back to the beginning of this thread and my first post, which has been recently edited.

Here are also a couple of facts for you:

1) The "What happened on the moon" video offers over three hours of overwhelming hardcore evidence for their case - fact.

2) NASA is unwilling to offer or does not have any evidence for their position - fact.

You should, indeed, refer to science, as that is the basis for evidence presented in the aforementioned video. But if you don't have even the basic logical and critical thinking skills, then you probably shouldn't waste your time watching the videos.

[zanzibar]

You're the viewer.  The religious fundamentalists are the ones who made the video.  There is no hardcore evidence in that video.  There is merely deceit and pseudo-science.  Nasa has tonnes of evidence for what we know to be true.  I've seen the video before.  It's old, and easily debunked.

Here's a challenge:  Pick your favourite piece of "hardcore evidence" from that work of fiction, and we'll poke holes in it.  Of course, since we lack "basic logic and critical thinking skills", you should be safe.

Oh, by the way, did I mention I'm working with the government to silence geniuses such as yourself who manage to somehow figure it all out?  God, I love fighting the truth.  It's so easy to decieve millions of scientists.  You should hear about this "global warming" thing I cooked up.

[Under the moon]

Does your video explain why the entire world (who we were in a cold war with almost half of at the time) would let the US get away with the 'hoax'? Does it explain how the thousands of people working for NASA here an around the world, plus the hundreds of companies directly involved in making it happen were fooled as well? Does the video sight any of the 'proof' disproved in any of the links steuben gave? These are as follows: out of center photos, wired up astronauts, radiation belts, no stars, camera flares, footprints, flag waving, out of date companies claiming it could not be done ten years before it -was- done, twisted shadows, no landing crater, moon rocks, and all the other nonsense claims made, then debunked.

Who made the video, and for what reason? So many people point out that mass media made and supported this hoax for profit. I find it amusing how so many of you are now using mass media videos that were made for profit to prove that mass media can make such a hoax. Ironic. These folks are not interested in spreading the truth. They are looking for a quick buck.

You are right. I did not watch the video, as I take my information from actual papers that don't try to tell you what to think with flashy graphics, smoke, and mirrors. Plus, if I wanted to see a bad SciFi movie (as these hoax things are) I would go the the cheap section and rent one. Explain to me the most proving point in the video. Better yet, find some actual text based papers to support the claims. Videos are all about the drama of the presention. Give me some cold, hard text and facts.

By the way, one of my uncles believes we never went to the moon. He also watches the sky for hours every night, trying to glimps one of the UFOs (of the alien kind) that he knows are out there.

And just one more question, Vulcas. Do you know anything about any of the subjects that are supposedly given as proof, or just taking their word for it?

[zanzibar]

And just one more question, Vulcas. Do you know anything about any of the subjects that are supposedly given as proof, or just taking their word for it?

Video> A.

Viewer> A?

Science> Not A.

Viewer> Cover up!

josePhoenix> You're all banned.

[Vulcas]

UtM,

Yep. Watch the video, don't make assumptions.

If you actually watch the video, you'll see who and why. It's not anonymous.

You are right. I did not watch the video, as I take my information from actual papers that don't try to tell you what to think with flashy graphics, smoke, and mirrors. Plus, if I wanted to see a bad SciFi movie (as these hoax things are) I would go the the cheap section and rent one. Explain to me the most proving point in the video. Better yet, find some actual text based papers to support the claims. Videos are all about the drama of the presention. Give me some cold, hard text and facts.

See, you assume it's all smoke and mirrors, you assume that it's a "bad sci-fi movie". You'd rather live in ignorance and fear instead of actually watching it and deciding after you're finished. Or are you so afraid that some "bad sci-fi movie" might change your mind? Surely your confidence in the "moon landing" isn't that weak or is it? FYI, the people who made this video hold PhD and various expertises in different fields, they used hard evidence, "actual text based papers" like you said (often highlighting the actual text and showing it to the viewers), scientific examples, and more to support their claims and findings. The video contains cold hard text from original archives and facts. Really, watch it, it doesn't bite.

By the way, one of my uncles believes we never went to the moon. He also watches the sky for hours every night, trying to glimps one of the UFOs (of the alien kind) that he knows are out there.

Did your uncle do any research by any chance?

And just one more question, Vulcas. Do you know anything about any of the subjects that are supposedly given as proof, or just taking their word for it?

I never just take anyone's word for anything. I listen and I read as much as I can. If you have a specific question about "any of the subjects" after watching the video, feel free to address it. Then we'll see where it goes from there.

It's actually funny that there is almost a certain fear in some people in watching this video. It's not like it binds you to automatically believe in it just because you decided to watch it. Watch first, decide later.

It's possible that some people are simply afraid to watch it because they think that they are not experts, so won't be able to confirm it. In this case, don't comment and ask the experts (NASA) the same question. See what answer they give you.

Some may also think that since there are also web sites that attempt to disprove these kinds of videos, they must be experts enough, and so just the fact that they exist must be enough proof that these videos are "wrong". However, if you went to school, it isn't that difficult to understand what they are saying and decide for yourself.

And if something is "too expert" for you, remember, that NASA, who has their own scientists with PhD, is unwilling to offer any evidence to refute the evidence presented in this video. You will see the actual visually recorded interviews with NASA representatives (and others) giving answers, so you can decide for yourself how credible they are.

Like I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion but at least have a decency to watch the video, if you're going to state one about my thread.

zanzi,

You are not "science", hence you can't claim "Science> Not A." Unless you are a PhD or an expert, your only source are other scientists of such caliber, and none of them have been able to disprove the evidence in this video so far.

However, thanks once again for keeping the thread on top.

[zanzibar]

Blah blah blah blah blah junk and garbage.  Give an example of "hardcore evidence" and we'll poke holes in it.

[Vulcas]

Blah blah blah blah blah junk and garbage.  Give an example of "hardcore evidence" and we'll poke holes in it.

The burden of proof is on you, chuckles. Prove to me that you've actually watched the video by pointing out a specific evidence that you disagree with. Not something that some "moon hoax" site mentioned somewhere and another "debunked". Stick to the video, then we'll talk.

Remember that NASA has been confronted with this evidence and is unwilling to offer any of their own, generally just trying to dodge and brush it off like it doesn't exist or stating something entirely unconvincing. And you are certainly no NASA.

[zanzibar]

Vulcas, you have failed to provide any hard evidence, therefore there is no hard evidence to provide.  You lose.


Since you're the one saying that the moon landing was a hoax, the onus of proof is solely on your shoulders.

[Under the moon]

PhDs do not mean a whole lot, and they do not make an expert. A PhD just meant you went to school for a certain number of years.

And no, the burden of proof is not on us. You presented the videos. You presented the argument. You have not given a single statement besides 'watch this vid and it will show you the light'. We have asked -you- to point out the defining factor in these videos that proves to -you- that the hoax is real. Now, I ask you who is brushing things off, and hiding in the shadows in fear.

I tell you now, I am not afraid of information that may prove me wrong. That is a slanderous assumption on your part. In fact, I seek out ways I might be wrong, so as not to look like a fool when I make such statements. I have researched this before, and have looked into all the claims made. I then researched each of the claims themselves to find out what was truth and what was not. You are obviously going by just a few videos that are trying to grab the spotlight.

Now, take that defining factor that makes you believe, and do some research and searching on your own to prove it is right. List both sides of the 'facts' either supporting or disproving it. I have done this already, and found all of the hoax 'facts' lacking. Have you? Or are -you- afraid of the truth?

I would also like to know how you know that the NASA 'statements' are the only ones they ever made, and that video is not picking and choosing.

I have made my defining factors known. One: The rest of the world would not have let the US get away with it. Two: the dust kicked up in all the videos behaves exactly the same, with the exact arc, hang time, and fall of fine partials that could only do so if they were obeying the physics of a low gravity vacuum. Find yourself a mathematician that can plug the data from the dust into an equation (as has been done before), and you will get the same answer. Math does not lie.

Your turn.

[Vulcas]

Thanks, bumpy.

Actually, you're overruled due to a failure to familiarize yourself with the available evidence, in this case the video footage, thereby showing your incompetence and lack of power to act with any effectiveness. Therefore, you automatically forfeit.

Verdict: Desperate

Now, anything specific you'd like to address in the video or should I just summarily rule you?

===

UtM,

You have a lot to learn about the meaning of PhD. If you actually conducted any research (goes hand-in-hand with PhD), you would know that. Tell your conclusions to the accomplished scientists and try not to look too embarrassed as they burst into laughter.

No, I provided the evidence, which is the video itself in this case. You have failed to examine that evidence but decided to draw conclusions anyway and actually claim that the evidence is unreliable without taking a single glance at it! If a judge in a court of law asked you to examine a piece of a document or watch a piece of video, guess what would happen if you said, "No, I refuse, I already know it's a lie, it must be a lie!"? Do you realize how incredibly weak your argument sounds now?

I have made several statements that this video contains numerous evidence and that it proves the "moon landing" as a hoax. Now the burden of proof is on you. However, if you are not even willing to examine my evidence and to familiarize yourself with it, then you automatically forfeit. Remember, you came to my thread complaining about the video that you didn't even watch.

If you have truly looked into "all the claims made", you would've looked into mine. However, you admitted that you did not watch the video I provided nor were you willing to. But yet you were certain that it's "smoke and mirrors" or a "bad sci-fi movie". Hence, this is no assumption on my part, only ignorance on yours. And if you want to know about "spotlights", watch the video.

Now, take that defining factor that makes you believe, and do some research and searching on your own to prove it is right. List both sides of the 'facts' either supporting or disproving it. I have done this already, and found all of the hoax 'facts' lacking. Have you? Or are -you- afraid of the truth?

I've already done my research and provided the evidence in a form of a video. In fact, it does list both sides. The burden to examine that evidence is now on you. If you're not willing to, then you can't effectively argue about its contents.

What it sounds like is either you are too lazy or too afraid to watch the video but still don't like the very nature of what it is confronting because you've already made up your mind about what you want to believe. Have you considered that this new evidence may be newer than the one you examined in the past? Obviously, not. Once again, remember, you came to my thread, challenging the videos I provided. But you did not lift your mouse-clicking finger to click on the link to watch it. Pure ignorance. Yea, I'm shaking in my boots.

Nowhere did I say that the NASA statements in this video are the only ones they ever made. But they are the statements given by NASA to the people who interviewed them at the time this video was made. Does that somehow make the NASA statements less true? It's still their words. If you would like to question a specific statement and an answer to it, watch the video, then reply. Don't assume!

The rest of the world would not have let the US get away with it...

How naive. Those "factors" or rather questions you posted were not asked by me, you were the one who typed them, not me. So, how about you watch the video first, see what factors and questions it states (something I agree with), along with the provided evidence, and then state the ones you do not agree with and provide your own evidence. Once again, you admitted to not having watched the video. How can we possibly have a meaningful conversation, if you are trying to argue about a video you've never watched?

This is what I meant about blind faith.

And no, math doesn't lie. People do, however.

Now, are you two going to embarrass yourselves further or actually watch the video before arguing about its contents?

[zanzibar]

Vulcas, you're being a silly person.  See, I'm not allowed to actually insult you, so instead I'll just leave it at that.  You're a person who is being silly.  A silly person, as it were.



Give one single example of hardcore evidence.  The video is not evidece - the video is a presentation of supposed evidence.  Give just one SINGLE example of hardcore evidence.  Just one.  1.  Uno.

[Vulcas]

Insults = losing an argument.

...single example of hardcore evidence.

You were so preoccupied with finding excuses not to watch the video that you missed it. Since you are especially confused, here is one example

Part 1 (single example) of a two-part video

And because I'm real nice, here is a second example:

Part 2 (another example) of a two-part video

The video is not evidece - the video is a presentation of supposed evidence.

The video is the evidence. Me posting a link in this thread is the presentation. You even got your terminology wrong, I see.

See you in four hours, I guess?