What happened on the moon [major update]

[zanzibar]

*sigh*

Viewer>  Proof!

Me> Where?

Viewer> *points to video like an idiot*

Me> Specifically?

Viewer> *points to video like an idiot*

[Vulcas]

Aww, how cute, I got Mr. Hankey all frustrated!

Real stumbling blocks those pesky video links are, they just won't click themselves, darn it!

[zanzibar]

Viewer>  Watch the video!

Me>  I've seen it already.

Viewer>  WATCH THE VIDEO!

Me>  I have.

Viewer>  CONSPIRACY!

[Vulcas]

Prove it.

[zanzibar]

Prove it.

The targets disappear because of bright light sources; the photographs have not been editted.

[Vulcas]

The targets disappear because of bright light sources; the photographs have not been editted.

Congratulations, you've watched roughly 20 minutes of the video, and even that is debatable because you did not provide the exact time index (you can link directly to time index). But I'll let it slide this once. Now onto the response:

Targets? You mean reticles. Bright light sources? You mean backgrounds. They claim there was only a single light source (unless there really wasn't). The problem with your "proof" is that there are several photographs with bright backgrounds but without disappearing reticles. The shot with american flag is not all white but red and blue as well that aren't nearly as bright. The center reticle is actually the largest on the camera and it is the one that hits (or blocks) the flag but there isn't even a hint of it anywhere across the white, red or blue. Ever study photography?

Anything else or do you agree with the rest? Post a time index next time, so I know you really watched it.

[Parallo]

I don't think your method of coming in saying 'this video is gospel!' is going to work. Don't act like it's totally infallible because chances are (I haven't watched the new one yet) that it isn't.

[Vulcas]

I don't think your method of coming in saying 'this video is gospel!' is going to work. Don't act like it's totally infallible because chances are (I haven't watched the new one yet) that it isn't.

Yet another blind faithed person saying "I haven't seen the video but I already believe it's a lie!". Nice foundation for your own credibility. I'm sure you're going to be completely unbiased. Nevermind my earlier comment about you being constructive. Also, never said it was a gospel.

This is the kind of people, folks, that mock anyone who doesn't agree with their views. Why watch the video and talk about details when we can ridicule and attack the messenger instead! Now there is a way to do it! All the books written, all the movies made about this side of human nature, and they never learn.

Thanks for getting more attention to this thread though.

PS Going to get some sleep now, so don't expect any sudden replies. Take the time to watch the video, at least.

[Narure]

The issue is you are failing to at all objective with the subject. If you were you would have found the arguments against the moon landing being a hoax and picked them apart to give somthing to discuss rather than the barrage of "your and idiots" back and forth we have now. You gave the evidence second hand and proofs against your evidence have also been given second hand in links in this thread. Please take the time to read them as you have told others to watch your movie and come up with a logical argument agaisnt them... Hence discussion starts... You see? Not so hard

[eldoth_terevan]

People still fall for this stuff. After all this time. Do research. Google good. Watch out for commercial documentaries, and verify the sources.

[Under the moon]

You still dance around the question and refuse to answer. What is the single best defining factor that proves the hoax? "The video" does not cut it.

I did watch one of those links you posted, if you remember, and then found a heap of evidence that it was just smoke in the wind.

If you are unwilling to pick out your defining feature of the video, then pick a random one and say it straight out in plain text without saying "The proof is in the video." You are afraid to do so because if a single one of the 'proofs' on the video can be proven false, then the entire thing is subject to doubt.

If this is about the photos taken on the moon, then yes, they have been editted. But only in the same way your family photo has been cropped, color corrected, and centered to show the best parts.

As to losing an arguement, repeating the same vague thing over and over again when someone asks you for something specific is most likely puts you on the losing side.

"Why are you right?"

"Because the video says so."

"What part specifically makes you the most right?"

"The video."

"Why should we spend four hours watching a video when there is a greater amount of info contained in shorter texts?"

"Because the videos are all I have."

You really should have more than one source."

"Just watch the video."

"You mean the one featuring David Groves?"

"Yes"

"Why should we trust what David Groves, PhD, says?"

"Because he has a PhD, and that means he -knows- things."

"What about all the other people with PhDs who say he is wrong?"

"They must not know the same things he does, and be wrong."

"But they are PhDs, so they must -know- things."

"He did experiments they did not."

"You mean these experiments? http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html"

"I don't know. Was it in the video?"

"I don't know, I did not watch the video."

"You should, as is has all this unrefutable proof."

"Unrefutable by any of this? http://www.clavius.org/index.html"

"Well, I would rather not say."

"Why?"

"I don't like being wrong."

*bows out*

[Parallo]

The way he's talking it's hard not to take him as a nut. Someone points out a general flaw and he starts demanding a time! Seriously... Don't demean me because I think we have more important things to worry about than some cover up theory.

[Quin]

I just know I'm going to get frustrated by getting involved in this conversation, but OK here goes ...

You promised me Hard Core Evidence, so I watched your link for What Happend on the Moon part 2
(to be clear, I didn't watch part 1. Sorry I had a little confusion when you were talking about link 1 and 2 and God references in 1 and not 2, and 2 was better about evidence and details ... so on and so forth.    Misunderstanding, sorry, so I only watched part 2)

I'm sorry to say that (at least in part 2) they provided no hard core evidence.  A lot of conjecture and hand waving, but no evidence.
I have a science background, so I'm only going to speak towards some of the science the video was talking about (and only that science I have some knowledge in, I'll leave the conjecture and hand waving to others who want to tackle it)

They spend some time talking about the Van Allen radiation belt.  They even throw some numbers around, how if the astronauts would have been exposed to 170 rem they would have died or 70 rem they would have gotten very sick.  But the video never says how many rem they think the astronauts would have actually received.  Most accounts put the dose of radiation received by passing through the belts, due to the time in the belts and shielding from the space craft (more on that in a secoond), in the neighborhood of 2 rem. (I can't remember if that was per instance or for a round trip, so it might be 4 rem for the round trip).  As a point of reference (again if I remember correctly, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong)  Americans who work in radioactive environments are allowed 50 rem per year exposure, and most Europeans , 15 rem per year exposure.
Of course they bring up supposed discrepancies about the depth of the belts and therefore the time spent in the belts (1.5 hours, 2 hours, 4 hours take your pick).  The belts are not clearly delineated, they spread out for very long distances, getting much weaker as they go, so there is no real end point.  But the fact is that strong portion of the belts, and therefore "dangerous" part (sorry, a little bit of hand waving there), is within 15000 miles of earth.  So, twice as long in the belt does not mean twice the radiation dose.

As to the shielding of the space craft.  The video claims that it is generally accepted, the craft would have needed aluminum shielding 10 cm thick.  ***edited to remove my unkind outburst***
Sticking to facts, satellites with only 1/8 inch of aluminum shielding orbiting in the strongest parts of the belts (elliptical orbits from 200 to 20,000 miles) are measured at receiving 2500 rem in a year.  Draw your own conclusion about how much shielding the craft would have needed and how deadly the 2 hour trip each way (4 hours each way for the conspirarists) would have been.

Seeing as part 2 brought very little science to the table, and I've addressed the part I know the best (I'm not an expert mind you and I will bow to any real evidence brought to contradict what I've said), I'll end for now.

You promised me Hard Core Evidence, and after watching your video (part 2), I'm wondering what part/facts you thought were this Hard Core Evidence.  I personally saw none.  Others in this thread have asked you the same question and you just point to the video and say "watch".  OK, I've watched.  Your turn now. Tell me which of these facts from the video, you take as proof.  Pick one, I promise only a friendly debate (flame thrower is off, and I'll leave conjecture and hand waving out of my side of the argument).  I have a really bad feeling that this whole process will get me agitated and frustrated with you, but I'm willing to give it a try.




[just a side note that shouldn't really matter, but you never know who will get offended.  Me not wanting to watch the religious version is not a bash against religion, but in my own personal experiences, religious fanatics (fanatics of all sort really) tend to, not always but tend to, use very very poor scientific method.  It is very painful to listen to someone hand wave and have them expect you to take it as proof and fact.
and in case you were wondering - I believe in God and go to church as well as being scientifically trained - go figure]

[Shangreloo]

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.

There is no reason for NASA to confront and debunk any "evidence" offered by conspiracy theorists, NASA is hardly in the business of working 24/7 to debunk psuedo-scientists. NASA, though it is the organisaztion that puts all the pieces together and gets all the credit for US space travel, is actually the culmination of a long process of research and developement that is carried out by several US and foriegn corporations.

A member of my extended family actually worked on the life-support system of the lunar module while he was employed with Northrop Grumman Aerospace, and was on the advisory team that helped get the Apollo 13 astronauts back to earth safely. Is this proof that the US actually put men on the moon? Of course not, but it sure is good first hand proof that NASA has sent men into space with the intention of actually landing them on the moon. It's not much of a stretch from putting men "close" to the moon to actually putting them on the moon.

BTW, there's a movie (70's or 80'era I think) that discussed this same issue: "Capricorn One". 

[Parallo]

Exactly! Do scientist set out to proove that tarot cards are just pieces of card and don't devine your future? No. That'd be a waste of time.

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out."
-Richard Dawkins