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

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    gerrybbadd wrote: »
    Except they're not

    Explain the matching backgrounds in separate photos
    15lemornolemcomp.jpg

    And how could the crosshairs, that were hard etched into the camera's glass plate, appear behind an image?
    sibrel_crosshair.jpg

    If you actually look at the high resolution source images of those background shots you can clearly see the background is subtly but noticeably shifted. Using low quality conspiracy modified images doesn't help your argument. Anyway this is called parallax. If you've driven on earth and you look at distant hills or mountains then you'll see the same effect. The distant object appears motionless while the foreground rapidly changes. The background mountains in those Apollo 15 images are from 10-15km away.

    The crosshair being not visible against white background is due to saturation from the bright white element on the image. Light bleed and dynamic range issues are pretty common in photography. Funnily enough if you could see the black crosshair then that would actually be evidence of potential photo tampering.


  • Options
    #63
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    gerrybbadd wrote: »
    Except they're not

    Explain the matching backgrounds in separate photos
    15lemornolemcomp.jpg

    And how could the crosshairs, that were hard etched into the camera's glass plate, appear behind an image?
    sibrel_crosshair.jpg

    Whats the conspiracy behind this I don't get it, like are they, not just two pictures of the same location on the moon?


  • Options
    #64
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,772 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I went to have a look on Youtube at the latest from moon-hoaxers - low and behold they've changed their algorithms, so instead of the conspiracy videos top-paging the results... they are virtually gone, and all the debunking/skeptic videos occupy the top-spot

    Same goes for Sandy Hook and Boston bombing

    About time


  • Options
    #65
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I went to have a look on Youtube at the latest from moon-hoaxers - low and behold they've changed their algorithms, so instead of the conspiracy videos top-paging the results... they are virtually gone, and all the debunking/skeptic videos occupy the top-spot

    Same goes for Sandy Hook and Boston bombing

    About time

    Any opposing views are going to be shut down this Nazi Germany in action. This from a country that introduced the patriotic act and spied on people and introduced malware to allies servers worldwide. Have you watched the film Snowden? Damn these people bugged everyone. Snowden even said if ally crossed the united states they could turn off the lights. America is modern day Nazi Germany.

    Facebook partnering with the Atlantic Council. Now corporations are doing the work for corrupt governments.
    https://www.mintpressnews.com/facebook-partners-hawkish-atlantic-council-nato-lobby-group-protect-democracy/242289/

    This is the officialdom trying to censor opposing views. Get rid of conspiracy sites they can do want they like sceptics are not going to notice.


  • Options
    #66
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I went to have a look on Youtube at the latest from moon-hoaxers - low and behold they've changed their algorithms, so instead of the conspiracy videos top-paging the results... they are virtually gone, and all the debunking/skeptic videos occupy the top-spot

    Same goes for Sandy Hook and Boston bombing

    About time
    Nowadays, most people who express doubt about the moon landings hedge their bets to avoid looking like a nutcase.
    Usually it takes the form of "I believe we went to the moon, but I think they altered some photos."
    But ask why the photos were altered or even which ones and how, all you get is deafening silence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,772 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Any opposing views are going to be shut down this Nazi Germany in action.

    Not in the slightest. Edit: due to the nature of search engines like Youtube and Google and how they ranked results, people could be seeking information on e.g. the moon landings, they'd type it in and a bunch of conspiracy videos would be top. That's insane, same with Sandy Hook, Boston bombing and so on. I am amazed it's taken them this long to address it.


  • Options
    #68
    by8auj6csd3ioq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭by8auj6csd3ioq


    "The internet has allowed village idiots to form associations." isn't it wonderful ,somethinmg positive for the village idiots though?


  • Options
    #69
    by8auj6csd3ioq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭by8auj6csd3ioq


    "What alternate explanation is there?

    Which is more likely: You are just wrong about your assumptions about a blurry, distorted image.
    Or there is an elaborate NASA hoax to alter one photo for no discernable reason, but they are also so incompetent, that the edit it badly, but then also leave that photo in the public domain after having released it in the first place.

    I know which I think is the more likely..."

    I am not wrong about my assumptions as i never made any. All i said is it does not look like an astronaut to me. You are so eager to be right you see an argument where there is none


  • Options
    #70
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mohammad Cold Mudslide wrote: »
    I am not wrong about my assumptions as i never made any. All i said is it does not look like an astronaut to me. You are so eager to be right you see an argument where there is none
    Lol, you guys get so touchy when people point out why your opinion isn't very valid or convincing.

    It does not look like an astronaut to you. But you are wrong.
    It does look like an astronaut because it is an astronaut.

    Using the one photo you are wrong about to hint towards a vast, elaborate conspiracy is a bit silly.

    If you don't believe that it is a vast, silly conspiracy and you can't possibly be wrong, how else do you explain the photo?


  • Options
    #71
    branie2
    Registered Users Posts: 10,288 ✭✭✭✭branie2


    He's wearing a spacesuit


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    nc6000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,221 ✭✭✭nc6000


    Here we go wrote: »
    Suprized you went with a very blurry pic and not buzz alldrean interview where he said they never went there when he was confused a month or so
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4uluUQXiji4

    Looking at that I'd imagine he meant to say we "didn't go BACK there" rather than "we didn't go there"


  • Options
    #73
    HappyAsLarE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭HappyAsLarE


    Faking a moon landing is much harder than actually going.


  • Options
    #74
    Jack Moore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭Jack Moore


    Which moon landing is the pic from


  • Options
    #75
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Jack Moore wrote: »
    Which moon landing is the pic from

    The OP image is from Apollo 17.


  • Options
    #76
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Let's hope they actually landed, or it'll be very embarrassing indeed, for all concerned.

    The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has said that 'a proposed mission to the moon will be tasked with verifying that the American moon landings were real'.
    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/russia-space-agency-chief-aims-to-verify-us-moon-landings-887557.html


  • Options
    #77
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »
    Let's hope they actually landed, or it'll be very embarrassing indeed, for all concerned.

    The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has said that 'a proposed mission to the moon will be tasked with verifying that the American moon landings were real'.
    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/russia-space-agency-chief-aims-to-verify-us-moon-landings-887557.html

    Russian propaganda let's be honest. There was more than 1 mission to the moon so they obviously went.

    I still think 1969 moon landing is not fully explained. There were always reports they saw stuff like UFOS on the way and even on the Moon watching them. Who's knows if that accurate, but the press conference after they came back was odd and weird they looked and acted like they were told to keep quiet about things they saw.


  • Options
    #78
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Russian propaganda let's be honest. There was more than 1 mission to the moon so they obviously went.

    I still think 1969 moon landing is not fully explained. There were always reports they saw stuff like UFOS on the way and even on the Moon watching them. Who's knows if that accurate, but the press conference after they came back was odd and weird they looked and acted like they were told to keep quiet about things they saw.

    Just because they weren't whooping and hollering at the press conference people put 2+2 together and come up with, well they obviously must have something to hide. These guys were ex military, trained to within an inch of their lives. Armstrong was infamous for how stoic and unemotional he was.


  • Options
    #79
    Ashbourne hoop
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭Ashbourne hoop


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Just because they weren't whooping and hollering at the press conference people put 2+2 together and come up with, well they obviously must have something to hide. These guys were ex military, trained to within an inch of their lives. Armstrong was infamous for how stoic and unemotional he was.

    That really comes across in the First Man movie. Great film too


  • Options
    #80
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,409 ✭✭✭Harika


    Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »
    Let's hope they actually landed, or it'll be very embarrassing indeed, for all concerned.

    If they didn't get there, there was a big chance 50 years ago for Soviet Russia (the ones that didn't really like the US at the time) to expose them with their pants down. They didn't what should give it away already.


  • Options
    #81
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Who's knows if that accurate, but the press conference after they came back was odd and weird they looked and acted like they were told to keep quiet about things they saw.

    A similar expression to when Donald came out of the private chat with Barry O' after handover for the role of POTUS, a bit pale and shell shocked.

    Unexplained interactions (references to 'santa claus', dark-side audio bursts and moon tracks) are all different issues to whether or not they actually landed and walked about.

    More importantly however than all this, is who is going to actually land and create a permanent base there first. There's only 3 players, maybe 4 if India develops exponentially.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »
    Unexplained interactions (references to 'santa claus',
    What's unexplained about the Santa Claus reference?


  • Options
    #83
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    What's unexplained about the Santa Claus reference?

    Wasn't SC the coded radio transmission reference for seeing anything of an intelligent nature that should'nt be there, presume it wasn't for sightings of St.Nicholas himself, or the Coca-Cola promotional figure.


  • Options
    #84
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »
    Wasn't SC the coded radio transmission reference for seeing anything of an intelligent nature that should'nt be there,
    Where are you getting this notion from?

    The astronauts were making a joke. They were not claiming that they saw aliens.


  • Options
    #85
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    Where are you getting this notion from?

    The astronauts were making a joke. They were not claiming that they saw aliens.

    And maybe their intentions of using this 'phrase' were fulfiled.
    i.e. Just having a bit of a laugh up while messing about in space.

    Maybe they did some knock knock, and 3 men walk in bar jokes too, during the singularly most time-sensitive, most fiscally expensive, and most reported scientific event in history, at that time.


  • Options
    #86
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,409 ✭✭✭Harika


    Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

    More importantly however than all this, is who is going to actually land and create a permanent base there first. There's only 3 players, maybe 4 if India develops exponentially.

    To do what? A permanent base, with humans will be extreme expensive with no return of investment. Helium 3 is SciFi at this point of history or mining in general.


  • Options
    #87
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »
    And maybe their intentions of using this 'phrase' were fulfiled.
    i.e. Just having a bit of a laugh up while messing about in space.

    Maybe they did some knock knock, and 3 men walk in bar jokes too, during the singularly most time-sensitive, most fiscally expensive, and most reported scientific event in history, at that time.
    Yes, they made jokes up there a lot.


    So what source are you using to conclude that the astronauts coded phrase for aliens?
    Where does this idea come from?
    Why is the idea of aliens on the moon and a massive decades long conspiracy to cover that up more likely than guys making a joke?


  • Options
    #88
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, they made jokes up there a lot.

    So what source are you using to conclude that the astronauts coded phrase for aliens?

    Where does this idea come from?

    Why is the idea of aliens on the moon and a massive decades long conspiracy to cover that up more likely than guys making a joke?

    You've never heard of this concept before?
    Time to brush up on your reading material, instead of utube lols.

    Guess the big question (in your godless, alternative-life less view) of things, it all goes back to simple probability.

    Just in our own local galaxy (certainly not entire universe) there are 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs.

    Assuming there might be the chance of inteligent life among these, would they not take 'a bit of observational interest' in humans setting foot, outside of earth?


  • Options
    #89
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »
    You've never heard of this concept before?
    Time to brush up on your reading material, instead of utube lols.
    Yes, I have heard of people trying desperately to make that one comment proof of aliens.
    I have never seen it substantiated at all, ever.

    Where do you get the information from and how do you know it's not just something someone dreamed up?
    Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »
    Guess the big question (in your godless, alternative-life less view) of things, it all goes back to simple probability.
    Sure, and what's more probable?
    Giant silly conspiracy that lasts decades?
    Or
    Dude made a joke?


  • Options
    #90
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sure, and what's more probable?

    Exactly, and so which IS more probable?

    That humans are the only form of life in the entire universe (nevermind our small galaxy), or that they're aren't? hmmm...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »
    Exactly, and so which IS more probable?

    That humans are the only form of life in the entire universe (nevermind our small galaxy), or that they're aren't? hmmm...
    Lol, that's a bit of a misdirect there.
    We aren't talking about the possibility of alien life, we're talking about your very silly claim that astronauts used a reference to Santa Claus as code to mean that there was aliens on the Moon.

    Even if your arguments were sound, it doesn't really have a baring on this claim.
    It doesn't make it any more real or likely and it doesn't make it sound less like it's been plucked out a desperate conspiracy theorist's arse.

    So, what's more probable? Please answer directly and honestly.
    Giant silly conspiracy that lasts decades?
    Or
    Dude made a joke?


Advertisement