Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

moon landing conspiracy

245

Comments

  • #32
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    karlog wrote: »
    It's a conspiracy theory so of course there isn't any concrete evidence if people only believed in concrete evidence then there would be no conspiracy theories. I dont think the russians would risk coming out and saying it, a goverment backing up a conspiracy theory wouldn'nt look good (especially if it was poven wrong).

    There is no concrete evidence but i believe there was a cover up and NASA was very good in doing so but they made mistakes which led to this theory. Thats what i believe.

    please tell me that answers your question

    Not really cause I'm looking for those specific mistakes.

    Many of those "mistakes" aren't evidence of a fake at all when you examine them critically.
    The ones you pointed out earlier have been addressed on the site I linked.
    Have you read it?


  • #33
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    ollieo wrote: »

    In 40 years there have been no more successful manned landings on the moon.

    This fact alone proves that the "moon landing" was faked!!!

    :rolleyes:

    England won the World Cup in 1966

    But they havent won it since

    That proves that England winning the World Cup in 1966 was faked!


  • #34
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    JimmyFloyd wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    England won the World Cup in 1966

    But they havent won it since

    That proves that England winning the World Cup in 1966 was faked!
    Rigged, I think is the word you are lookin for there :D:D:D


  • #35
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Rigged, I think is the word you are lookin for there :D:D:D

    Wait.. you might be onto something....

    .. that dodgy goal that never was... the lineman was RUSSIAN!!!! :eek:

    :pac:


  • #36
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    King Mob wrote: »
    Not really cause I'm looking for those specific mistakes.

    Many of those "mistakes" aren't evidence of a fake at all when you examine them critically.
    The ones you pointed out earlier have been addressed on the site I linked.
    Have you read it?

    I have read it

    You keep saying evidence if your looking for evidence then i think your in the wrong forum this is a conspiracy theory. Did you see how much i stressed 'I believe' in my post. I dont care about real evidence and all those mistakes that have been examined critically what makes it true for e.g

    Let me examine one mistake critically THE SHADOWS in the picture there unparallel. NASA says its because the surface of the moon is uneven. Thats a good explanation but it doesn't rule out that the uneven shadows could of been caused by multiple light sources on a set.

    Believing everything NASA says is going in favour of them. I dont believe everything they say and i DONT BELIEVE they went to the moon.

    I really hope this theory is proven one day. Goodbye im done with this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    karlog wrote: »
    I have read it

    You keep saying evidence if your looking for evidence then i think your in the wrong forum this is a conspiracy theory. Did you see how much i stressed 'I believe' in my post. I dont care about real evidence and all those mistakes that have been examined critically what makes it true for e.g
    But if you're not examining the evidence why do you believe the conspiracy theory?
    karlog wrote: »
    Let me examine one mistake critically THE SHADOWS in the picture there unparallel. NASA says its because the surface of the moon is uneven. Thats a good explanation but it doesn't rule out that the uneven shadows could of been caused by multiple light sources on a set.
    Well no.
    The reasoning is "the shadows are not parallel, therefore the only explanation is there are two sources of light. therefore it must have been filmed on a set with two lights."

    However it is not the only explanation as has been shown.

    It also leads to the question: "If NASA where working on this elaborate hoax, wouldn;t they turn off the second light?"

    Many of the other "mistakes" are of a similar nature.
    karlog wrote: »
    Believing everything NASA says is going in favour of them. I dont believe everything they say and i DONT BELIEVE they went to the moon.

    I really hope this theory is proven one day. Goodbye im done with this thread.
    But believing everything conspiracy theorists say is the way to go?


  • #38
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    karlog wrote: »

    ...........I dont care about real evidence....

    :rolleyes:


  • #39
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    King Mob wrote: »
    But if you're not examining the evidence why do you believe the conspiracy theory?

    Well no.
    The reasoning is "the shadows are not parallel, therefore the only explanation is there are two sources of light. therefore it must have been filmed on a set with two lights."

    However it is not the only explanation as has been shown.

    It also leads to the question: "If NASA where working on this elaborate hoax, wouldn;t they turn off the second light?"

    Many of the other "mistakes" are of a similar nature.

    But believing everything conspiracy theorists say is the way to go?

    I cant really explain it, are these mistakes that conspiracy theorists say evidence or is what NASA says in response to them evidence. If what the theorists are saying is called evidence then yeah i guess i am examining the evidence

    'Why didnt they turn off the second light' thats your opinion maybe they got careless maybe having a single light source that would appear to light a whole surface from a distance wasn't possible or was possible but it didn't work out in the studio

    I never said i believed everything conspiracy theorists say is the way to go but i do take into account some of things they say because im convinced by it. Thats just me, some people are different but i am truly convinced by what they say about the moon landings.


  • #40
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    JimmyFloyd wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Could you elaborate?[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif]I refuse to accept even the most convincing evidence because i dare not admit that i have been lied to by people whom i placed my trust
    [/FONT]


  • #41
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    OP, have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    Tonight i could've written a thesis on you


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    karlog wrote: »
    I cant really explain it, are these mistakes that conspiracy theorists say evidence or is what NASA says in response to them evidence. If what the theorists are saying is called evidence then yeah i guess i am examining the evidence
    And have you actually examined the claims the theorists put forward?

    Many of them are simply not based in any facts.
    Like the claim that the radiation in the Van Allen Belt would have killed the astronauts.
    Have you ever seen any independant evidence to back this up?

    I haven't.
    I have seen alot of evidence that shows this to be false.
    karlog wrote: »
    'Why didnt they turn off the second light' thats your opinion maybe they got careless maybe having a single light source that would appear to light a whole surface from a distance wasn't possible or was possible but it didn't work out in the studio
    And they wouldn't hire people to check for stuff like this?

    But you see how the argument "two light sources is the only explaination" doesn't work?

    And how about the evidence against there being two light sources.
    For instance, the fact that if there were two sources of light there would be two sets of shadows.
    karlog wrote: »
    I never said i believed everything conspiracy theorists say is the way to go but i do take into account some of things they say because im convinced by it. Thats just me, some people are different but i am truly convinced by what they say about the moon landings.
    But you haven't looked into the claims critically. How can you be sure that they are right? Couldn't they be mistaken? Or deliberately lying like you think NASA is?


  • #43
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    karlog wrote: »
    Could you elaborate?[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif]I refuse to accept even the most convincing evidence because i dare not admit that i have been lied to by people whom i placed my trust[/font]

    So, you say that even if you are shown stone cold evidence and it is proven to you, you wouldn't believe it?

    That's utterly ridiculous and frankly, there's no point in me or anyone talking to you anymore.

    Ever heard the expression "you wouldn't know one if it hit you in the face"?


  • #44
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    JimmyFloyd wrote: »
    So, you say that even if you are shown stone cold evidence and it is proven to you, you wouldn't believe it?

    That's utterly ridiculous and frankly, there's no point in me or anyone talking to you anymore.

    Ever heard the expression "you wouldn't know one if it hit you in the face"?

    Not the so called convincing evidence of the moon landings which i dont believe is evidence at all


  • #45
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    karlog wrote: »
    Not the so called convincing evidence of the moon landings which i dont believe is evidence at all

    So basically nothing is going to change your mind, not even evidence?


  • #46
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    King Mob wrote: »
    And have you actually examined the claims the theorists put forward?

    Many of them are simply not based in any facts.
    Like the claim that the radiation in the Van Allen Belt would have killed the astronauts.
    Have you ever seen any independant evidence to back this up?

    I haven't.
    I have seen alot of evidence that shows this to be false.
    And they wouldn't hire people to check for stuff like this?

    But you see how the argument "two light sources is the only explaination" doesn't work?

    And how about the evidence against there being two light sources.
    For instance, the fact that if there were two sources of light there would be two sets of shadows.

    But you haven't looked into the claims critically. How can you be sure that they are right? Couldn't they be mistaken? Or deliberately lying like you think NASA is?

    Heres one claim that you should consider in one of the apollo mission videos what looks to be a wire can be seen for a second. Could be anything but its seen protruding from one of the astronauts going directly up in the air.


  • #47
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    JimmyFloyd wrote: »
    So basically nothing is going to change your mind, not even evidence?

    Yes evidence from a russian telescope with photographs of the apollo landing.

    That type of evidence or something on that line will change my mind


  • #48
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    How about an impartial 3rd party?

    if i had proof, would you believe it? The same proof the Russians could give you


  • #49
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    JimmyFloyd wrote: »
    How about an impartial 3rd party?

    if i had proof, would you believe it? The same proof the Russians could give you

    How would i know you weren't conspiring with NASA or the U.S government. The only people i could think of that would love to debunk the moon landing (more than conspiracy theorists) is the russians.


  • #50
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    karlog wrote: »
    How would i know you weren't conspiring with NASA or the U.S government. The only people i could think of that would love to debunk the moon landing (more than conspiracy theorists) is the russians.

    See, that is typical of people like you.

    Tell me this, how do you know the Russians wouldnt want to feed you lies too?

    You sir, are an idiot!


  • #51
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    JimmyFloyd wrote: »
    See, that is typical of people like you.

    Tell me this, how do you know the Russians wouldnt want to feed you lies too?

    You sir, are an idiot!

    Well why would the russians feed lies about the moon landings also. After all it was the U.S who embarrassed them and won the space race. A chance to prove they were fake. Imagine to propaganda.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    I'm out!


  • #53
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    ok you jackass ill leave it at this, you believe they were real i believe they were fake. Until proven then we'll all know


  • #54
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    It has been proven, you just don't wanna hear it.

    Do you believe in other theories or just this one?


  • #55
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    Just this one

    and there have been theorys that have turned out to be true

    and the moon landings have not been proven not yet


  • #56
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    Which ones have turned out to be true?


  • #57
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    Secret CIA prisons

    Watergate scandal

    Iran-contra

    Secret bombing of cambodia(not a secret anymore)

    The cuban project

    Operation PBSUCCESS

    there just some of the theories that have been proven


  • #58
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    But how do you know? How do you know that the Russians weren't behind all of those conspiracies in order for you and everyonee to always suspect the Americans of conspiring against us?


  • #59
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    LOL because they have been proven and dont reply with 'but the moon landings have been proven' cause they haven't


  • #60
    JimmyFloyd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭JimmyFloyd


    ...... but the moon landings have been proven.

    Have you seen proof that Watergate isnt just a Russian cover up?

    Unless i get proof from the russians, i don't believe it!


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    I'm out!!!


Advertisement