>Do you honestly and seriously think that nobody has ever thought about
>that?

Of course, both sides have gone over every detail, and while
I haven't followed the conspiracy wesites, I remember having
watched a TV special about it, and most of the portions they
discussed seemed to have simple RL debunks. It really makes
the hoax theorists look like idiots.

>Let me ask you a question: Do you know the mechanics and physics behind
>the so-called photographic lens flare effect?

Yeah, light bounces beween the lens front and back.
There was quite a bit of glass in the moon rocks too,
so it's possible that there was sparkle from rocks.

>I warmly recommend you to read some debunking websites besides those hoax
>theory websites. Then make an informed decision on whether the explanations
>make sense and which possibility is more plausible.

I'm not sure it's really worth my time, there's not going
to be any proof that misplacing the tapes is incompetence
as NASA claims, vrs intentional as I suspect.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more plausible 
>> than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.
> 
>   I still don't see too much difference from what I wrote.
> 
>   The astronauts would have to either be involved directly in the fakery,
> or some other people would have to be put in suits to fake the photos.
> Even if the fakery did not require actually taking photos, only manipulating
> existing material, the astronatus would notice some of the photos not
> matching anything they did. In either case I find it implausible for all
> these people to keep quiet about it.
> 
>   Some people have to make the decision to create the fakes and arrange
> for making them. Some people need to do the actual faking. Some people
> would notice that some of the photos were not in any of the films in
> the actual cameras, and would certainly start asking questions about
> where those photos came from. All of these people would have to be kept
> quiet about these issues for the past 40 years.
> 
>   And what would be the point? Why fake some photos while still having
> some genuine photos? Why take the risk of this information leaking?
> 

But.. The same people that "think" they managed to do this also thing 
that a Florida man who once worked as a janitor at a lab, by the name of 
Lazar, is actually a physicist who had every scrap of evidence, 
including his own SSN, school records, birth records, etc. **all** 
erased by the NSA and CIA, and replaced by ones showing he was a 
clueless, uneducated fool, to hide the fact that he worked on the secret 
projects to reverse engineer alien space craft. You know.. The stuff 
that we came up with, like gravity drives (oh, wait, no, we haven't 
managed that one) or micro chips, the later of which work so well, that 
there are dozens of research projects trying to replace them with light 
based chips, quantum computers, and even, in some obscure circles, new 
classes of analog systems... None of which work *anything* like a 
transistor, but I am sure the same people think where "reverse 
engineered" from the same glowy flying space ships, in a secret 
building, that Mr. Lazar worked with.

Oh, and the real fun thing.. The moron insists that the almost instantly 
decaying, Ununium 115 is the power source for these ships, and that its 
"natural" form is neither radioactively toxic, nor unstable (never mind 
the fact that the stuff made by us in particle accelerators *is* the 
natural kind, and you would have to strip off like 30+ electrons (this 
is an estimate, since I have no idea what the next stable "downward" 
element would be), or add 69 of them, to get a "stable" configuration of 
184 electrons. Pretty sure, though its been a while, that isotopes have 
only +/- 1 electron, maybe 2, but nothing I have ever seen suggests you 
could add, or remove 30-70 of them to get a "stable" form. For one, I 
doubt the core would sustain that many lost, or gained, without them 
flying off, or causing a collapse of the structure. The 184 element 
*might* be feasibly worth something, if anyone ever made any, which we 
haven't, and I suspect its properties are probably not anything like "fuel".

Oh, yes, and the local wacko that believes Lazar *and* the moon landing 
being a hoax, also thinks that 9/11 was "staged".

The way I figure it, if all the shit they think people faked over the 
years where faked, the amount of power such people would have to have 
would make it **easier** for them to simply arrange for inconvenient 
people like Lazar to die in a car accident, *before* they write a dozen 
fracking books, then erase anything they might have written down, 
instead of wasting decades erasing documents to make the guy look like a 
quack. Basically, anyone able to cover up the shit they are accused of 
could make the population of an entire state vanish, if they where 
"inconvenient" and be similarly *never caught at it*. Yet, somehow, all 
these people who "know the truth", these thousands of walking corpses, 
these inconvenient people that, if they just dredged up one single 
document some place, could bring the whole thing down, are amazingly 
alive, loud, prolific in whining about the conspiracies, and, in many 
cases, making a damn good living off of selling stuff that any *sane* 
conspiracist would have had burned, along with their bodies, before the 
first book hit the printers, never mind a book shelf.

These people make my head hurt...

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/03/09 03:31, Warp wrote:
>>    If you think about it, you'll find some problems with that idea. As 
>> you
>> know, the Earth rotates. This means that one point on the surface of the
>> earth is in direct line-of-sight to the Moon for an average of 12 hours
>> per day. It's physically impossible for the NASA mission control center
>> to have a 24-hour direct link to the signals sent from the Moon.
> 
>     Satellites?
> 
Of which there where what.. Maybe 5 at the time, all stationary *over* 
the US, not in the least because people in other countries would have 
been less than happy to know they where being potentially spied on. On, 
and.. Unless you missed the point of how they are built, they have two 
systems on them, both aimed *at* what they are dealing with, one to 
receive, the other to transmit, and both at pointed *down*, at the 
earth. As a rule, most satellites, especially from that period, could 
only relay information from the ground, to other satellites, or back to 
the ground, and then only in line of site, and then only on the same 
plane, if the moon was *behind* the damn thing, it would be worthless, 
as it would be on almost any angle to the moon from it. We still have 
the same issue talking to orbital systems and space craft today. 
*Something* has to be pointed at what you plan to receive.

Now, I suppose, if you where taking a long approach, you could have shot 
up a dozen satellites, all specifically *designed* to receive data from 
the "opposite" direction of the earth, but that would have taken more 
launches, before we put people into space. Fact is, even today, we 
*still* have our space craft talk to ground stations, then *those* 
stations relay the data up to a satellite, which shoots it across to 
another one, and finally back down to the ground. The shuttle/ship never 
"talks" directly to the satellites.

>>    (Also, do you *seriously* think that eg. the USSR was not watching
>> closely every single transmission? The USSR would have loved nothing
>> more than to expose a hoax and ridicule the USA.)
> 
>     That's the kind of logic conspiracy theorists use.
> 
Uh, no. Conspiracy theorists make up implausible secret agencies, then 
claim that *those* are watching everyone. We know the USSR existed, we 
know they spied on us, we know they watched our TV, we even have 
documentation indicating they listened in on a lot of stuff we did in 
the space program. Its hardly implausible, or only supported by some 
random wacko with a book, who insists he once worked for some secret 
project to paint rocks for a fake landing, or the similar BS you get in 
conspiracy theorist thinking.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil
> 
>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)

You win.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_News&set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=nw20090903102100719C618601


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:57:43 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>On 09/03/09 03:31, Warp wrote:
>>    If you think about it, you'll find some problems with that idea. As you
>> know, the Earth rotates. This means that one point on the surface of the
>> earth is in direct line-of-sight to the Moon for an average of 12 hours
>> per day. It's physically impossible for the NASA mission control center
>> to have a 24-hour direct link to the signals sent from the Moon.
>
>	Satellites?

IIRC Goonhilly in Cornwell (UK) was used as a relay. I've got a vague memory of
an American military base somewhere in Turkey being used too.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
>> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)
> 
> You win.

Google too.
http://picturehost.net/b0b/OnionOnGoogleNewsPage.jpg

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> >I warmly recommend you to read some debunking websites besides those hoax
> >theory websites. Then make an informed decision on whether the explanations
> >make sense and which possibility is more plausible.

> I'm not sure it's really worth my time, there's not going
> to be any proof that misplacing the tapes is incompetence
> as NASA claims, vrs intentional as I suspect.

  So because there's no absolute proof either way, you choose to believe
the most implausible explanation rather than the simpler, plausible one?
And this even in the light of everything else (mentioned in this thread
and all those debunkin sites).

  Again, think about the alternatives:

1) Due to bureucracy, carelessnes or whatever, they lost some material.
It's not like this kind of thing has never happened to any big organization.

2) There was a conspiracy and some of the material was faked, and everyone
involved and everyone who ever suspected foul play has kept quiet for the
past 40 years.

  Which explanation is more plausible to you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> The way I figure it, if all the shit they think people faked over the 
> years where faked, the amount of power such people would have to have 
> would make it **easier** for them to simply arrange for inconvenient 
> people like Lazar to die in a car accident, *before* they write a dozen 
> fracking books, then erase anything they might have written down, 
> instead of wasting decades erasing documents to make the guy look like a 
> quack.

  That's one part of radical conspiracy theorists which I find rather
amusing. (Of course not *all* of conspiracy theorists are so radical,
but many are.)

  A common claim is that the Big Evil, ie. the government secretly controls
everything, performs assasinations of unwanted people, has supersecret elite
forces which perform all kinds of illegal secret activities (such as the
assasinations, as well as kidnapping people, etc), and that they will destroy
anybody who tries to expose the truth about the government secrets.

  The amusing (and at the same time sad) thing is that these people honestly
don't seem to see the contradiction here. *They* are supposedly exposing all
the government secrets, and at the same time they are claiming that the
government is assasinating anybody doing so.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> >>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
> >> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)
> > 
> > You win.

> Google too.
> http://picturehost.net/b0b/OnionOnGoogleNewsPage.jpg

  What I find amusing is that the satire article at Onion doesn't say that
Armstrong confessed to the hoax. It clearly says that Armstrong "had been
convinced by a conspiracy theorists that it was a hoax" (including his
historic first step on the Moon). Which of course makes absolutely no sense.
(How can he not know at the time he was just participating in a hoax, and
only be convinced later?) Yet some people just bought it without thinking
about it for a second.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:44:19 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   Which possibility seems more plausible?
>> 
>> He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more 
>> plausible than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.
>> 
>
>http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

Not the only one :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stm
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message