Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:26 am  

You post all this internet trawled speculatory evidence Mugwump but I'd like to know YOUR personal thoughts about why a space agency would feel the need to fake then try and convince the whole planet that there has been a moon landing. Why would they go to ridiculous lengths to do it? For what purposes? Who are the winners and losers out of it all? Was it some crazy idea written on the back of a fag packet that got way out of hand or is it part of a grander scheme?

You see, I'm of the belief that it did happen as they say it did, but if it came from the horses mouth in the next half hour that it was all one big illusion it would make absolutely no difference to my life and I'm sure it wouldn't do to millions of others. Life would just go on, just as it does after wars, deaths, celebrations, wins, losses. People would carry on stargazing, looking at the moon and thinking "one day we'll land a man on there..."

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:31 am  

Mugwump wrote:

As for the Chinese photographs. Aside from a couple I haven't really looked at them. However, I must point out that if someone had used evidence put forward by the CHINESE or the RUSSIANS twenty or even ten years ago they'd have first been pilloried and then laughed out of the discussion. Are we now supposed to accept them FA-style, without question and then shake a paw? Are they the GOOD GUYS?

Maybe take a look and get back to us with how they've been faked?


Personally, I'm still in the 'why would they bother' camp. Why are all these agencies faking photographs, what do they gain from it etc.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:39 am  

The trouble with people that have time invested into 'alternate versions of reality' is that it is easier to fall further and further down the rabbit hole than change their views and have to climb out. You will never ever find a 'reformed' conspiracy theorist. Once they are in, they are in forever. Admitting that something they may put forward is flaky in the evidence department is a massive no-no. The constant covering of one idea to the next is exhausting. They go round and round in ever tightening circles, until all they can hear is themselves. They get bogged-down in the minutiae of a particular point without realising the ridiculousness of the larger argument.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:54 am  

King Street Cat wrote:

You post all this internet trawled speculatory evidence Mugwump but I'd like to know YOUR personal thoughts about why a space agency would feel the need to fake then try and convince the whole planet that there has been a moon landing. Why would they go to ridiculous lengths to do it? For what purposes? Who are the winners and losers out of it all? Was it some crazy idea written on the back of a fag packet that got way out of hand or is it part of a grander scheme?

I think there are only two plausible reasons.

1. They couldn't meet the deadline Kennedy had set with the available technology and did it to save the embarrassment of a multi-billion dollar bust. If the Van Allen belts are as lethal and extensive as I suspect they never had the lifting capacity to put enough shielding into space. But even if they aren't and you can somehow dodge the worst of it (I find it hard to accept that the topology of any complex and chaotic field can be precisely "known" so far in advance - especially back in the sixties) those astronauts would have been bombarded with high-energy solar radiation throughout the bulk of the trip and likely taken a lethal dose. If FA's "magic suit" theory holds water NASA has solved one of the nuclear industry's most pressing problems - the provision of effective radiation shielding for workers asked to clean up the mess left by nuclear piles which have either reached the ends of their lives or done a "Chernobyl". We KNOW that the Apollo command module was a shambles up to the Apollo I fire because of Gus Grissom's comments. Now, we can either accept NASA's side of the story and they somehow managed to fix all their issues to such an extent that every single mission returned home safely and all but one landed on the moon - or we can conclude that this is a cover story.

2. They are already on the moon using novel forms of technology (such as the TR-3B) and have some reason for not telling us which they don't wish to share.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:10 am  

TheButcher wrote:

The trouble with people that have time invested into 'alternate versions of reality' is that it is easier to fall further and further down the rabbit hole than change their views and have to climb out. You will never ever find a 'reformed' conspiracy theorist. Once they are in, they are in forever. Admitting that something they may put forward is flaky in the evidence department is a massive no-no. The constant covering of one idea to the next is exhausting. They go round and round in ever tightening circles, until all they can hear is themselves. They get bogged-down in the minutiae of a particular point without realising the ridiculousness of the larger argument.

This is a flawed argument on many levels. I mean, I've never really bothered investigating Apollo and compared with others who have invested years I'm a total novice.

The questions I have asked are very simple. If Apollo is everything NASA claims the answers should also be simple.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:17 am  

Like I often say in the Unmediated History thread. The only people who believe in this stuff either a) haven't researched it or b) are somehow invested (or both).

And before anyone replies with some psychobabble about "finding what you want to" - remember, I was as ardent a supporter of the Apollo program as anyone for over forty years. Anyone who knows anything about my hobbies and interests will testify that I really DID NOT want to arrive at this conclusion. I was once LIKE YOU.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:28 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Like I often say in the Unmediated History thread. The only people who believe in this stuff either a) haven't researched it or b) are somehow invested (or both).

And before anyone replies with some psychobabble about "finding what you want to" - remember, I was as ardent a supporter of the Apollo program as anyone for over forty years. Anyone who knows anything about my hobbies and interests will testify that I really DID NOT want to arrive at this conclusion. I was once LIKE YOU.

But as I said earlier, whether it's a truth or a lie, life goes on.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:45 am  

While i could understand such a massive hoax being pulled in the 60s/70s , i believe other countries would now be able to provide evidence to prove it, you might suggest they could be bought off, but i would imagine Mr Putin would reish the chance to embarass the US

There is 1 major issue which could support the claims of those that dont believe, and that is that in 40 years with massive increases in technology nobody has sent a human being outside a low earth orbit as far as I know

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:54 am  

Mugwump wrote:

This is a flawed argument on many levels. I mean, I've never really bothered investigating Apollo and compared with others who have invested years I'm a total novice.

The questions I have asked are very simple. If Apollo is everything NASA claims the answers should also be simple.

It wasn't aimed at you, just a general observation.

Why is it flawed? Show me where the flaws are. Show me a conspiracy theorist that isn't any longer. Show me a conspiracy theorist that has accepted evidence that goes against their own ideas. I've never come across any. There may be some somewhere, I'd be interested to see them if they exist.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:38 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Stop wailing you pompous jerk. You are good at insulting anyone who doesn't subscribe to your barmpot quasi-religious beliefs (indeed you are among the WORST OFFENDERS I've seen on this site in this regard) so don't come moaning when someone returns the favour with interest.

Aww, feeling inadequate again, Mugs? there, there, don't take on so!

Mugwump wrote:

A simple YES or NO question: If one is familiar with the inverse square law and its effects on LIGHT INTENSITY is it POSSIBLE for you to look at a photograph and arrive at a reliable conclusion about whether a SINGLE LIGHT SOURCE of KNOWN SIZE is close to the subject or far away based solely on the EFFECTS of said light source?

Fsck me, now you think you're Rumpole!

Short answer: It depends.

Longer answer:

1. I don't see the direct relevance.
2. You won't explain the relevance of your "point" (or indeed what your point actually is) so how can anyone sensibly consider whatever it is you are getting at?
3. It isn't a "yes or no" question. You don't get to set a multiple choice of 2 one-word answers! What next, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Mugwump wrote:

I know the answer to this question and can prove it experimentally.

Well, you think you do, and if so, good for you! My congratulations! I'd just like to know, how big is your studio (length minimum 93 million miles? Must be expensive to rent) and how do you recreate a G-type main-sequence yellow dwarf star for your re-creation?

If you can't do that, then you would have to set out how you recreate these basic parameters in some other way, in order to arrive at your proof. What is your proof? I'd be fascinated.

I know that your question, such as it presently is, is of no apparent direct relevance to what we are discussing, so unless you can re-frame it in a way where we can see your point and any relevance, you seem to be wasting your time.

I think you've watched too many old TV courtroom dramas and genuinely see yourself like Rumpole or Perry Mason, with a killer question. When what you need is a less banal scriptwriter.

While the "single" (sic) light source you probably refer to (the Sun) was naturally there, any items on the surface were illuminated by more than one light source; the Sun's light was reflected back from the regolith; the Earth was in the sky and acting as another light source (earthshine, much like moonshine on earth, but more variable, and from a bigger object); and the camera had an integral FLASH; which when used would also scatter off the regolith, astronauts' clothing, lander etc. as the individual image's case may be.

As it is, you're trying to infer that you have some sort of killer point, based on your self-proclaimed immense knowledge of the inverse square law and photographic exposures, but your tactic of "Look, I KNOW what the issue is here, and it is OBVIOUS, and so I DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO MAKE MY POINT, I can just ask obligue rhetorical questions and this will suffice" is cringeworthy.

But at least you are learning stuff. I've taught you that there is no air on the Moon, and that the Sun is actually not a small light source, so I am furthering your scientific education. I don't expect gratitude.