Video you may never seen

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

here is a vid the demo's my point if you can stand it. Do your own research but clearly that is the furthest from his mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YQ0dMJEjsk

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Do some research

Neven, I did that some 13 years ago and >>what I found made for good reading<<.

May I please see your detailed argumentation on each of Phil Plait's comments, explaining why those comments aren't valid. For example, where he says that the photos show no stars because of the extreme contrast between sun-lit objects and the background sky and the exposure settings being made accordingly, I'd like to see how that is not true (I know very little about how cameras work). All other arguments to be treated in the same fashion.

I look forward to your analysis.

Thanks

[blindman]

Did not want to upset you guys, just wanted to hear your thoughts and maybe some arguments.
Regards

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Did not want to upset you guys, just wanted to hear your thoughts and maybe some arguments.
Regards

Well Neven, you must have expected that people would not take kindly to such claims.
But you feel strongly about your claims and N1 (Mirko) has provided some arguments and has asked you to answer some questions on the link he has provided, so it's up to you.

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

Thanks Mirko , I had forgotten about this site , woaw has it really been 13 years but it still gives a very well balanced un-biased showing of the 'Real' evidence , not giving the 'HB,s' to much of a hard time .
As said everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Thanks for posting the link I enjoyed it as much as the first time .

Brian.

Originally Posted by N1

Neven, I did that some 13 years ago and >>what I found made for good reading<<.

May I please see your detailed argumentation on each of Phil Plait's comments, explaining why those comments aren't valid. For example, where he says that the photos show no stars because of the extreme contrast between sun-lit objects and the background sky and the exposure settings being made accordingly, I'd like to see how that is not true (I know very little about how cameras work). All other arguments to be treated in the same fashion.

I look forward to your analysis.

Thanks

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

here is a vid the demo's my point if you can stand it. Do your own research but clearly that is the furthest from his mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YQ0dMJEjsk

that is a very funny video parody Ken - clears all those issues up nicely .

At heart, this stuff seems to be based on a single belief - "No-one could be smarter than I am, so if I don't understand it then it must be wrong"
Once you accept this starting point, all the rest follows:
- scientific consensus = conspiracy
- facts that appear to support my hypothesis can be cherry picked at will and those that contradict my hypothesis obviously must be wrong and can be ignored
- I have a duty to enlighten the heathens

It is a different way of thinking from that used by the majority on this site, but it seems to be widely used in other parts of society, including some of the loudest in the media. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with an adherent to the belief, since contra-indications are dismissed without thought.

then again it might just be a bit of fun at our expense.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Retro-reflectors were planted on the Moon during the Apollo 11,14 & 15 missions in order to bounce lasers from the Earth. This enables accurate Earth-Moon distances to be measured.

It would take a very impressive magic laser trick if the lunar landings were fake.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Just stumbled on some interesting video you may enjoy - (probably not :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gem10A4yt5w

Originally Posted by blindman

Well, it is up to you. Use your brain.Do some research, do not just believe what you see on cgi's (computer generated images)
Cheers

Originally Posted by blindman

No hard feelings, guys.
For those who blindly believe in NASA, I have found some serious stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4h2czZTTLM
Enjoy.
Regards

Originally Posted by blindman

Did not want to upset you guys, just wanted to hear your thoughts and maybe some arguments.
Regards

Ditto to that last post. I don't want to upset you but I'd like to hear whether you have thoughts and arguments. So far you have merely posted links and, when challenged, have immediately accused others of 'blindly believing' and needing to 'do some research' and 'use your brain'. Well, I think you need to lead by example. How about posting a paper detailing your critique of the 'alleged' moon landings? You should look at how each of the following aspects were fabricated:

• take off
• landing
• telemetry
• footage on the moon
• scientific results
• the presence on Earth of lunar rocks
• the presence of corner reflectors on the Moon

Clearly there is enough material there to write a thesis but I suspect most of us will have little appetite for anything more than about 2000 words. In my experience, if you know your topic and have done your research, this is about the minimum it takes to write out a coherent, cogent argument. Over to you.


ps I prefer Harvard in-line referencing, much easier to read than footnotes.

[BeanerSA (Paul)]

First that Frank Rosso guy and now this dude. What a week!

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

ps I prefer Harvard in-line referencing, much easier to read than footnotes.

Vancouver referencing please - easier to read and I can ignore them if I want to

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

Vancouver referencing please - easier to read and I can ignore them if I want to

Guys, don't make it harder for him than it already is!

[blindman]

Originally Posted by N1

Neven, I did that some 13 years ago and >>what I found made for good reading<<.

May I please see your detailed argumentation on each of Phil Plait's comments, explaining why those comments aren't valid. For example, where he says that the photos show no stars because of the extreme contrast between sun-lit objects and the background sky and the exposure settings being made accordingly, I'd like to see how that is not true (I know very little about how cameras work). All other arguments to be treated in the same fashion.

I look forward to your analysis.

Thanks

Thanks Mirko,
no need for analysis, all explained on numerous occasions.
BTW I love :"No flames from lunar launch".
Please remember that rocket engine does not work in vacuum (space).
Cheers

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Please remember that rocket engine does not work in vacuum (space).
Cheers

You know, I asked that very same question in 6th class and my teacher told me that they mix oxygen with it so it fires.

Then I asked how can the flag wave on the moon when there's no atmosphere, teacher explained that the flag had a wire mechanism to keep it looking as though it's flying.

My teacher also said these were good questions and that I was astute in asking them.

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Thanks Mirko,
no need for analysis,

Not easy, is it?

Originally Posted by blindman

BTW I love :"No flames from lunar launch".
Please remember that rocket engine does not work in vacuum (space).
Cheers

Please explain how corrections of, say, course, speed or attitude of vehicles in space are made.

[AndrewJ]

Please explain how corrections of, say, course, speed or attitude of vehicles in space are made.

As rockets plainly dont work, maybe the astronauts flatulate into directional vuvuzelas?
Remember, in space,noone can hear

Andrew

[torana68 (Roger)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

................, but if he actually believe it then perhaps this isn't the web site for him. Perhaps something like flat earth guys are more his style.

I would have thought as an Astrology site this is perfect?

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by blindman

BTW I love :"No flames from lunar launch".
Please remember that rocket engine does not work in vacuum (space).
Cheers

I believe it was Konstantin Tsiolkovski that resolved that "issue" in the late 19th/early 20th century...you know, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Y before CGI existed (he DIED in 1935)

But of course, we cannot let history and fact get in the way of a conspiracy theory.

[bobbyf (Bob)]

This sketch is quite funny - you've probably seen this before though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

Cheers

Bob

[blindman]

Originally Posted by LewisM

I believe it was Konstantin Tsiolkovski that resolved that "issue" in the late 19th/early 20th century...you know, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Y before CGI existed (he DIED in 1935)

But of course, we cannot let history and fact get in the way of a conspiracy theory.

Konstatntin was inspired probably by Fritz Lang.
We are not talking about any conspiracy, but just a few lies to public.

Proposal for LEM had about 100 pages, while proposals for military aircraft projects has 10,000 pages or more.

[Regulus (Trevor)]

Ahaha. Cool. I haven't seen this one before. I love some of the videos idiots make. So entertaining.

KenGee: loved your link mate. Very enjoyable :-)
A good question for the Flat Earthers is: How come all the other planets look like balls?

Trev