Happy Moon landing anniversary!

I remember watching in amazement when I was four years old, also noticing the impact on the grown-ups around me. Then.... a few years later I watched the series Space 1999 and thought wow! Many of these space effects look exactly like the moon landing footage!? Did it really happen or did this same team of tv people work on that also? :) Now there are a bazillion conspiracy theories out there! Some are really out there!
 
If you believe they put a man on the moon!

Lol! I will until someone can show me credible evidence to the contrary that can't easily be debunked, which to date, I haven't seen.

I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but the moon, 9/11, and flat earther's have yet to come up with a solid theory that withstands scruntiny....Kennedy is another story though:oops:
 
Lol! I will until someone can show me credible evidence to the contrary that can't easily be debunked, which to date, I haven't seen.

I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but the moon, 9/11, and flat earther's have yet to come up with a solid theory that withstands scruntiny....Kennedy is another story though:oops:
I hate to get this started because usually it ends in name calling and a generally bad vibe all around. That being said I can’t help myself because both 911 and the moon landing are so easily debunked from the official story its hard to see otherwise. But I say that respectfully.
 
I hate to get this started because usually it ends in name calling and a generally bad vibe all around. That being said I can’t help myself because both 911 and the moon landing are so easily debunked from the official story its hard to see otherwise. But I say that respectfully.

I understand where your coming from, and agree that these day's it's difficult to discuss things in a civil manner. However, the optimist in me believe's it can still be done provided it's with reasonable minded people willing to consider fact's and logic and avoid conjecture. I have my views on a number of thing's but I will always respectfully welcome any counter view/info that I may not have considered previously, provided that view is delivered in an equally respectful manner.

Like I said I love a good conspiracy, I just haven't found many that can be supported by fact's and logic...some, but not many.

I like to think I'm well versed on most of the theories on both subject's, but maybe I don't have all the info. Of the popular moon theories, the only one I've seen that does give me pause is the crew's bizarre verbal and non verbal response's in the post mission press conference.they do show many of the signs of deception for questions, you would think, they would have anticipated...but that alone isn't enough, at least in my case.

Ironically, one my wife's favorite movies is Capricorn 1...go figure.
 
I understand where your coming from, and agree that these day's it's difficult to discuss things in a civil manner. However, the optimist in me believe's it can still be done provided it's with reasonable minded people willing to consider fact's and logic and avoid conjecture. I have my views on a number of thing's but I will always respectfully welcome any counter view/info that I may not have considered previously, provided that view is delivered in an equally respectful manner.

Like I said I love a good conspiracy, I just haven't found many that can be supported by fact's and logic...some, but not many.

I like to think I'm well versed on most of the theories on both subject's, but maybe I don't have all the info. Of the popular moon theories, the only one I've seen that does give me pause is the crew's bizarre verbal and non verbal response's in the post mission press conference.they do show many of the signs of deception for questions, you would think, they would have anticipated...but that alone isn't enough, at least in my case.

Ironically, one my wife's favorite movies is Capricorn 1...go figure.
yes I agree with you. conjecture is not enough. There is evidence on both sides of every perception of truth. My questions regarding the official account of the lunar landing as well as the official story regarding the 911 attack are regarding the scientific evidence of the validity of both.

To be honest, I see very little evidence in support of either official story.
The most conclusive evidence on the contrary with regards to the lunar landing is with regards to the video footage of the astronaut's shadows whilst jumping on the moon caused by the sun. In short, you can see the shadow of the astronaut lengthen disproportionately to the distance from the light source (the sun). If you jump up and down on the ground on a sunny day you will find almost no difference in shadow length because of the relative distance from the sun.

As for the official account of the 911 attack there is plenty of evidence that shows that a building on fire does not fall at the free fall rate that both buildings fell. I do not claim that we were not attacked but it looks obvious to me that the buildings fell in a demolition style not in a weakening of the structure due to a jet fuel fire. The temperature of jet fuel does not burn hot enough to bring a building down from top to bottom at that rate. Many professional engineers agree with this observation.

Just a few observations.
 
The temperature of jet fuel does not burn hot enough to bring a building down from top to bottom at that rate. Many professional engineers agree with this observation.

Just a few observations.

Come on...who are these "many professional engineers"....we want names....
 
What I’ve heard regarding the shadows controversy is that precisely because the moon has no atmosphere, the Earth casts it light onto the moon as well. Also the stars as well are effective light sources given the no atmosphere on the moon scenario.

So that may explain the shadows?
 
I remember watching the lunar landing on a small black an white Tv and telling my mom an dad what was happening and they were watching from the kitchen.
Somethings you never forget how cool it was.
 
yes I agree with you. conjecture is not enough. There is evidence on both sides of every perception of truth. My questions regarding the official account of the lunar landing as well as the official story regarding the 911 attack are regarding the scientific evidence of the validity of both.

To be honest, I see very little evidence in support of either official story.
The most conclusive evidence on the contrary with regards to the lunar landing is with regards to the video footage of the astronaut's shadows whilst jumping on the moon caused by the sun. In short, you can see the shadow of the astronaut lengthen disproportionately to the distance from the light source (the sun). If you jump up and down on the ground on a sunny day you will find almost no difference in shadow length because of the relative distance from the sun.

As for the official account of the 911 attack there is plenty of evidence that shows that a building on fire does not fall at the free fall rate that both buildings fell. I do not claim that we were not attacked but it looks obvious to me that the buildings fell in a demolition style not in a weakening of the structure due to a jet fuel fire. The temperature of jet fuel does not burn hot enough to bring a building down from top to bottom at that rate. Many professional engineers agree with this observation.

Just a few observations.

As others have mentioned, the unexpected (from an earth bound reference) photographic results (shadows, no stars, etc...), can be attributed to the difference in atmosphere as well as reflective nature of the surface itself. Under the right circumstances, you can see a similar effect here in an uneven snow field. I agree, it does appear to be a multipoint light source based (and in a sense it is) on what we know as our common reference here, but it isn’t the same. Just as the Lahaina noon phenomenon seems improbable to those who see it for the first time.

Let’s consider for a moment what would be required if any of these hoax claims were true:

It would basically be the plot of Capricorn one, and would require the participation of a massive amount of people, of which, none have come forward (deathbed or otherwise). The lone source and origin for most of these claims, is the 76 book by Kaysing... the “Bob Lazar” of the Apollo program. But the advent of the internet allowed that theory to take hold and grow into what we have now.

Assuming you were able to somehow coerce the massive amount of people that would be involved to be complicit...how would you then get the 60’s era soviets to go along? Zero chance they wouldn’t have had at least an inkling (if not hard proof from intel or scientific means) of a hoax, and given that scenario, what would be their motivation to sit on it all these years? The Apollo program was nowhere near the security of the Manhattan project and we all know how that went.

How would we explain the reflectors that were left behind and are still used (by multiple countries) to collect distance data? The moons rocks in Houston which analyze as having properties not found here? And the more recent photos referenced in this thread?

In order for this to work... we would need to believe that a 30 billion dollar program, that was able to coerce hundreds if not thousands of people, in addition to a party with no higher motivation at the time than to beat us to the moon (catching us in a hoax would have been their greatest coup) and not have one word slip for fifty years.... these are the same people who aren’t competent enough to realize there’s more than one light source on the set?

Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible...but which is more likely?

Re 9/11:

If your referring to the same engineers (and dr’s) that I’ve seen in a number of different truther programs...my take on that is that they only seem to mention information that support’s their claim, while ignoring anything that’s counter to it...doesn’t strike me as objective...and if they are not objective, then what’s their motivation? And some of them (Dr Judy Wood), completely ignore the obvious. But people are prone believe titles without considering facts or motivation. History is full of engineers, Dr’s and professors who have been outright wrong, or intentionally manipulative to serve their own agenda.

To believe the controlled demolition theory, would require belief in a number other things as well that just don’t add up. And while we could discuss jet fuel, thermite, melting point of steel, history of steel building collapses in fire etc... I would counter with this...show me any controlled demolition (excluding domed stadiums or similar structures) that starts at the top (like all three buildings did that day)? That’s not how controlled demolition works... to say nothing of the fact that you would need to believe that a building that would have had to be pre wired for weeks ahead of time and include all floors above say 40...would then have those charges and wiring survive the impact of an airliner...only to be detonated nearly an hour later at the exact same impact... which has been a raging fire the whole time ? And then, on top of that, you get really lucky and the other building does the exact same thing?

In both cases, start with motivation...and then, based on that answer...ask yourself if these were the most efficient, low risk, controllable means to achieve the goal? There are countless simpler, easier to manage scenarios involving far few people to achieve a false flag... why go for something this complex and unmanageable when you don’t need to?

Now the argument for prior knowledge is a different story....

Sorry for the length.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom