i've boiled down my beliefs on the issue to just being certain that certain photos & videos were faked. whether we went or not, i don't even give a fuck about, and i'm more likely to believe that we may have actually gone just because of the logistics involved in keeping a secret that big.
i don't have a solid opinion on the actual event, but it's undeniable that there's video of people being pulled on strings, moon & earth photo prints taped to the inside of lunar capsules, and normal footage slowed down, etc. that could be mock-up props used for "training", or footage that may have been faked in a scenario that we DID go and were just unable to film it properly, or because we didn't go.
there's just so much conflicting evidence. nasa letting the originals rot in unkempt storage is flummoxing, the camera companies that went to the moon never/don't tout that in their ads or company history, etc etc.
these days, i'm only convinced that certain media of the event is 100% fake. what that means or implies, i don't care anymore.
> i've boiled down my beliefs on the issue to just being certain that certain photos & > videos were faked. whether we went or not, i don't even give a fuck about, and i'm > more likely to believe that we may have actually gone just because of the logistics > involved in keeping a secret that big.
Yeah, I think at least Apollo 11 did actually land people on the moon (and return them). The USSR would've called their bluff if that was faked. I'm not so convinced all the later missions actually achieved everything they claimed.
Just so you know. This was a big deal that I remember as a kid & was pointed out quite a bit from what I remember, in the displays at the Kennedy Space Center.
Pessimist: Oh, this can't get any worse!
Optimist: Yes, it can!
My Dad worked for NASA during the moon landings. NASA, for PR purposes, would do well to send a satellite over the landing site and get pictures of the rover still sitting on the surface. I think their worry is that if it is obscured by dust settling on everything, and they're not able to get good pictures, then holy shit will the conspiracy nuts go crazy with that, "See, they couldn't get pictures because there is nothing there, yadda yadda yadda."
> My Dad worked for NASA during the moon landings. NASA, for PR purposes, would do well > to send a satellite over the landing site and get pictures of the rover still sitting > on the surface. I think their worry is that if it is obscured by dust settling on > everything, and they're not able to get good pictures, then holy shit will the > conspiracy nuts go crazy with that, "See, they couldn't get pictures because there is > nothing there, yadda yadda yadda."
ISRO already showed pretty definitive imaging of the tracks left by the lunar rover.
Then there are the images returned by the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter which show various footpaths left by astronauts who landed.
The problem here is not that there isn't evidence. The problem is that the deniers want to claim that there isn't evidence, and then when presented with evidence, want to deny that it's valid. At some point one starts to think that these people aren't really interested in the truth or in what really happened, but in feeling special and above others by being part of an elite group of the "woke".
It's the same lack of critical thinking that, taken to its extreme, leads to people doing things like denying the holocaust, accusing mass shooting victims of being "crisis actors", shouting about "controlled demolitions" to those of us who watched a plane smash into one of the WTC towers, or shooting up pizza parlors because they believe there's a child sex dungeon in the basement of a restaurant that doesn't even fucking have one: It's easier to believe in some grand conspiracy in order to tell yourself that there's someone, anyone in control rather than admit that sometimes, really bad shit - and sometimes really good shit - can happen that is completely and 100% out of our control. It's a way of feeling powerful in a world rife with powerlessness. It's a sickness, and I used to get angry at people who believe in these things, or deny these things, but as the years tick by it's gradually being replaced by an intense feeling of pity.
>ISRO already showed pretty definitive imaging of the tracks left by the lunar rover. >Then there are the images returned by the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter which show various footpaths left by astronauts who landed.
See, that's pretty awesome for me. I never knew about those.
> dust settling? there's no movement on the moon unless something impacts the surface.
I would imagine that the moon's gravity and tidal forces from Earth cause some measure of settling and erosion over time, in addition to effects from the near-constant barrage of smaller meteorites.
> > ISRO already showed pretty definitive imaging of the tracks left by the lunar rover. > > Then there are the images returned by the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter which show > various footpaths left by astronauts who landed. > > See, that's pretty awesome for me. I never knew about those.
But that's the thing that gets me. You said:
> NASA, for PR purposes, would do well to send a satellite over the landing site and get pictures of the rover still sitting on the surface.
They more or less did that, but not for PR purposes. They just used the imaging capability of a lunar orbiter that was there for the purpose of mapping the entire moon to begin with, to snap those images.
But more importantly, that info has been out there for years for you to find if you had looked for it.
I don't mean to call you out or anything, I'm just saying, it's not like NASA have made a big secret of it or anything, for the LRO mission I linked directly to NASA's own site. It seems like it's not so much that the information isn't out there, as it's just generally accepted that the information isn't out there, and so the conspiracy theorists don't bother to look.
It's like a person claiming that there's no snow on the ground because he lives in a climate where such weather would be unusual, while at the same time not bothering to look out his own window in order to see the snow that, yes, is in fact on the ground outside his house, thanks to an unseasonably cold winter. It's not that the evidence isn't out there, it's that people want to claim that it isn't out there while doing literally nothing to try to find it. That's what bugs me about the whole moon-landing-hoax people.
Last conspiracy theory plausible to me was I heard was it really happened but they couldn't do the live filming part at the time so the filming was faked, and Stanley Kubrick was hired to do the filming and admitted to it with clues in The Shining, and the back story, keeping the secret ate him up inside.
He certainly seemed to fill The Shining with all sorts of hidden meanings beyond the film, and the idea of being able to beam the filming at the time seems crazy to this day, but I'm not much for all this crap.
Here's a video I caught a couple weeks ago, and thought it'd be relevant.
There's another video I've seen a long time ago. About the astronauts finding alien bodies and a ship somewhere on the moon, but being ordered to keep quiet about it. Sounds cool af, but probably not true.
"probably not true"... Well, do you believe there is other life out there in the universe? Is it possible they're more advance than we are? If so, then.........
> There's another video I've seen a long time ago. About the astronauts finding alien > bodies and a ship somewhere on the moon, but being ordered to keep quiet about it. > Sounds cool af, but probably not true. > > "probably not true"... Well, do you believe there is other life out there in the > universe? Is it possible they're more advance than we are? If so, then.........
Advanced enough to not crash their ship into the moon? Yes. Advanced enough to travel tens or hundreds of light-years to not visit us when it mattered? No.
> About the astronauts finding alien > bodies and a ship somewhere on the moon, but being ordered to keep quiet about it. > Sounds cool af, but probably not true. >
>>That's what bugs me about the whole moon-landing-hoax people.
i can sympathize with them because there are certain materials that are clearly faked, then it becomes an issue for people doubting the entire project. but, yes, it's annoying when confirmation bias is the bigger factor in conspiracy discussions.
I think the moon landings were real to some degree. Yet if there's something I've learned from the last years is that long term "winners" not only use drugs but do cheat in order to keep the charade. It could be for something as simple as faking a hi score or winning the Tour de France to justify a war or winning the space race.
For example I don't think the US government demolished their own towers, yet there's the possibility they could "let it pass" in order to anger their population and justify an invasion with open arms. That period also showed how the government was willing to keep a lie in order to pump up patriotism with Jessica Lynch's case.
Right now there are conspirationists claiming Mars photos shown are altered in contrast and coloring to show something we can comprehend, that those aren't the true colors of Mars. I could research more if I were willing to do it but the truth is I don't care. Still, I root for the day this information comes from something other than the NASA monopoly and other sources get involved. Something that is happening at a slower peace but eventually it will be there.
Just like religion, science could be a blind faith because not everyone is willing to invest time, research from scratch and they have to trust previous findings they couldn't be true at all. So while annoying, if anyone wants to demonstrate for the billionth time the Earth is flat so be it.
> Right now there are conspirationists claiming Mars photos shown are altered in > contrast and coloring to show something we can comprehend, that those aren't the true > colors of Mars. I could research more if I were willing to do it but the truth is I > don't care. Still, I root for the day this information comes from something other > than the NASA monopoly and other sources get involved. Something that is happening at > a slower peace but eventually it will be there.
Yes, it's true. The colors of nearly all Mars images are altered. Curiosity uses filters on its cameras, for its own purposes as well as for us..
Your phone does too, and likely every digital camera you've ever touched. They have to, so that you can comprehend what you're seeing. CCD and CMOS sensors see IR natively.
1: the u.s. government has and will lie to further any agenda that they deem necessary.
2: the u.s. government has no problem using it's own people to accomplish the first no matter the cost.
3: the u.s. government will go above and beyond what most of the general public believe they are capable of to protect the above 1 & 2.
Just look at the things the government did to soldiers during ww2 all the way to a couple yrs ago with the fast and furious gun deals they were making and then using it to push gun control until the fbi agent blew the whistle. Again a select few decide and the rest of the machine works to either further the agenda or try to keep it hidden.....
Index 
Threaded 
Astronomer finds ‘proof’ of faked moon landings...
Reply
[Re: 
