|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted October 13, 2008 04:31 PM |
|
|
|
Instead of repeating the same old "you are wrong and a bunch of loons", would you rather address my questions and answer them? I believe i'm very good in advanced physics and mechanics, thank you, I'm planning a doctorate in a related domain, so I don't really think you should assume anything. ;>
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 04:41 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 16:43, 13 Oct 2008.
|
I see both sides of the issue, I am not sure if it is a hoax or not. So far no evidence provided has made me think either it is or it is not. Sure I lean toward it not being a hoax, but I am not convinced it is not.
I do think that there may be an area where the government holds alien aircraft that crashed, and alien corpses.
I don't think that we are visited by aliens regular basis. So I do think there are some hoaxes out there.
However it is my contention that things were being watched too closely by other governments for this particular hoax to be successfully pulled off.
Apparently nothing can be said or explained to some peoples satisfaction either way. Weighing the current evidence I have seen first hand, I lean toward the moon landing not being a hoax. I am not just 'dismissing' anything from either side.
Either side could be guilty of hoaxing people. I've examined all the photos, and I find no inconsistancies that have not been explained to MY criteria. Some people could be taken to the moon themselves, and still be convinced it was a hoax. Just no way to convince them.
I am not egotistical enough to say I KNOW I am correct, but I believe that in this instance that the photos and movies were taken on the moon.
Edit : and I have answered most of your questions Doomforge, you just won't even consider that there are explinations.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 04:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Some people could be taken to the moon themselves, and still be convinced it was a hoax. Just no way to convince them.
Yeah you should try to tell that to the Flat-Earth society people, no seriously 
(they'll probably say some kind of virtual simulation hoax or something  )
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 04:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Instead of repeating the same old "you are wrong and a bunch of loons", would you rather address my questions and answer them? I believe i'm very good in advanced physics and mechanics, thank you, I'm planning a doctorate in a related domain, so I don't really think you should assume anything. ;>
Why should I? You aren't reading the stuff anyway. In the site I posted it's stated that you can see the crosshairs on all fotos when you go up with the resolution. Period.
In any case, why should you take people serious where half of the questions is completely ridiculous - I mean, if they have a serious point, why not concentrating on that point, instead of just trying to make the pile high enough no matter the garbage used for it?
If youz are as good in advanced physics and mechanics as you are claim you shouldn't believe idiotic crap. Case in point:
If someone tries to prove something at court with a number of evidence and half of that evidence is OBVIOUSLY silly, what do you think is happening with the case and the rest of the evidence that is NOT QUITE so obviously silly? Right. If you have serious evidence you don't need crap evidence. If you try to score with obvious crap evidence you have a problem.
Lastly, you couldn't answer any of my questions:
1) The original fotos? Where do the hoaxers have it from. The "C" on the stone is for example such a case.
2) Why didn't the Russians intervene? With such an obvious hoax and the technology still not available they would have had good reason to.
3) With tons of people working on it, why is it such a silly fake with so obvious blunders like missing crosshairs, numbered stones, waving flags. Why would you assume that the NASA personel is as dumb as the hoaxers seem to be? Why has no one talked from the hundreds who must know about it?
4) Why did they fake so many landings?
.
.
.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 05:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why should I? You aren't reading the stuff anyway. In the site I posted it's stated that you can see the crosshairs on all fotos when you go up with the resolution. Period.
And why should I trust some random site when what they say makes no sense lol
And yes, I read all what you post, JJ.
Quote:
In any case, why should you take people serious where half of the questions is completely ridiculous
Again, you are just claiming, without explaining. It's so easy to say "omg you are all dumb".. it's a bit harder to proove it. You don't even try. "why should I" is no answer, sorry. Just say that you don't know or can't explain, like Mytical did, it will be pretty ok.
Quote:
- I mean, if they have a serious point, why not concentrating on that point, instead of just trying to make the pile high enough no matter the garbage used for it?
The point is that the photos AND videos provided were a hoax. And I do concentrate on it. What do you want me to concentrate on if that was my point from the very beginning?
I don't know whether they landed successfully on the moon or not. I can only say that what the "proofs" they provided suck.
Quote:
If someone tries to prove something at court with a number of evidence and half of that evidence is OBVIOUSLY silly, what do you think is happening with the case and the rest of the evidence that is NOT QUITE so obviously silly?
I discard the silly ones and focus on the less silly ones.
Quote:
Right. If you have serious evidence you don't need crap evidence. If you try to score with obvious crap evidence you have a problem.
So if you claim 1+1 = 3 and post it along with a very good advanced math theory, does that automatically mean it's all rubbish because half of it is not true?
Quote:
1) The original fotos? Where do the hoaxers have it from. The "C" on the stone is for example such a case.
I told you already. I got them from random sites. I have the book though and they use the same photos. Want me to copy it and post it here, or..?
Quote:
2) Why didn't the Russians intervene? With such an obvious hoax and the technology still not available they would have had good reason to.
So if the Russians didn't intervene in the "iraq has weapons of mass destruction" absurd, it automatically means Iraq indeed has those weapons? We already know that it was total BS. Your point does NOT prove anything. Sorry. You may say times have changed, but pinpointing a major lie of the rival country is always priceless - going by your logic.
But your logic doesn't seem to work here 
Quote:
3) With tons of people working on it, why is it such a silly fake with so obvious blunders like missing crosshairs, numbered stones, waving flags. Why would you assume that the NASA personel is as dumb as the hoaxers seem to be? Why has no one talked from the hundreds who must know about it?
How should I know? They don't seem to care for it. They post it around and documentaries are based on them. Go ask them, not me.
Quote:
4) Why did they fake so many landings?
.
.
.
Ditto. Oh heck, too many quotes. I hate quotes  Yet people force me to use them with the
1.
2.
3.
4.
system of writing
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 05:47 PM |
|
|
Well, now it's at me to LOL.
You talk about the moon landing as if THEY had to prove they actually did - when the whole world watched and the people who landed there are still living.
What you say is, they are all lying.
Why do you say that? Because 30 years later some idiots who can post their crap only BECAUSE of the moon landings and the thousands of satellites in the orbit started looking at the historical archives and made some absurd claims that probably started out as a joke.
NOW, with the technology abailable you can do all sorts of thing, but with the video and foto technology available THEN you just couldn't.
If you look at the monster of Loch Ness fotos you'll find some quite old ones that couldn't be identified as hoax until the makers admitted that they were faked.
Question: If a normal guy can fake a foto of the monster of Loch Ness that isn't identifiable as a fake, why would then the darn NASA, faking the most important document of the time be so incredibly stupid and do it like the cleaning woman might do in some utility room? Because they didn't care? And the Russians neither?
Oh, and by the way, yes, if someone has a supposedly advanced theory of complex mathematics I'll put it away as soon as I read something like 1+1=3.
I repeat, the people that did it are still living. Enough witnesses. They all say it was real. What else do you need?
Oh and Mytical, there are no two sides and a maybe. Either they landed on the moon or not. There is no maybe involved here.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 05:52 PM |
|
|
Oh, we have a lot of people that claim something was real and worked for US.
Like that employee from Area51 that claimed they held little green men there.
Why not to trust HIM?
.. you're very optimistic. And still, you haven't tried to prove those things are wrong. If you identify them as garbage, you MUST know WHY, right? Because if you don't, you shouldn't say they are false.
So please enlighten me. Maybe you're a top rank scientist and I'm just wrong? Who knows. But until you express your point of view rather than saying "you're wrong" and "it's dumb", we won't get anywhere. Especially since most of the hoax proof is based on simple physical laws.
And I didn't say I agree with all of the points from that site.. some may be an arguable proof (or no proof at all). But.. some of them are really good, I think.
So, tell us what you think (but no "I think it's all dumb", please..)
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 06:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, and by the way, yes, if someone has a supposedly advanced theory of complex mathematics I'll put it away as soon as I read something like 1+1=3.
And that's a problem really, since it means absolutely nothing can convince you that 1+1=3 even if someone were to try you'd put it away
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 06:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, we have a lot of people that claim something was real and worked for US.
Like that employee from Area51 that claimed they held little green men there.
Why not to trust HIM?
With the moon landing there is no astronaut or technician or scientist or other worker that claims something different than the official version. All people who WOULD know, say the same thing. All the technology necessary was there and has been tested.Not ONE single event was out of the ordinary, people walked in space in the mid-sixties, made rendevouz and sent probes to the moon. Apollo 10 orbited the moon. Everything was as it should have been, and I've lived in the time. It was possible technically and they just did it. SIX TIMES. One failure. Out of 7 tries. Thousands of people had part in it and half the world, including myself watched it. Period.
If you don't believe it, well, there are those who don't believe in the concentration camps of the Germans in second WW either and claim it's all a fake. Who cares what some idiots say when you had relatives being killed there?
Quote:
.. you're very optimistic. And still, you haven't tried to prove those things are wrong. If you identify them as garbage, you MUST know WHY, right? Because if you don't, you shouldn't say they are false.
So please enlighten me. Maybe you're a top rank scientist and I'm just wrong? Who knows. But until you express your point of view rather than saying "you're wrong" and "it's dumb", we won't get anywhere. Especially since most of the hoax proof is based on simple physical laws.
And I didn't say I agree with all of the points from that site.. some may be an arguable proof (or no proof at all). But.. some of them are really good, I think.
So, tell us what you think (but no "I think it's all dumb", please..)
What I think is that there are a couple of websites that actually bothered to examine the "evidence". Why would I go beyond them? Why would I waste my time which such nonsense when enough people already did it?
Now, if you read the fat print, this is where we disagree. I explained to you why. You cannot support a serious theory by throwing everything around you can think of. You expect that they dismiss everything which is obviously silly or at least doubtful, speculation or an outright mistake. Because if you read the following:
1+1=3
2*3=8
21/3=6
13*17=211
you won't check
197*324=63728 anymore.
A last word to procedure.
The moon landings are fact. If someone doubts this they must PROVE it. Accusations are not enough. PROVE. As in witnesses; material that would support the fake: the location of the studio and so on.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 06:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The moon landings are fact. If someone doubts this they must PROVE it.
That's a claim, and needs proof. Photos can't prove anything. Or is proving so easy that I can make a video myself, upload it on YouTube and it'll be proof enough? Or am I not the "official authority"?
Also:Quote:
Dr. David Groves - Works for Quantech Image Processing and worked on some of the NASA photos. He said he can pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used. Using the focal length of the camera's lens and an actual boot, he has calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.
I'm too busy to search more now but I'll leave it to you
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 06:39 PM |
|
|
k, so if they told you there are little green men under your bed, and brought three NASA people that would claim to see them, you'd believe too?
I know people are susceptible to propaganda, but come on.
At least try and make your OWN points without those stupid sites that tell you "explanations" like that one with crosses (aka the dumbest thing I ever heard).
I made mine when I got an english magazine ten years ago. My english was pretty poor then but I just looked at some pictures and they looked pretty stupid. Especially the cross thing.
It's not that I read that site and a lightbulb suddenly appeared above me and turned on.
So basically, what I want you to do is to post your way of thinking. Not "look at the anti-hoax site". Post your OWN way of thinking.. like what on earth is that cross doing there.. do you have an explanation and thus can you say without hesitation that all of this is junk? Or do you just don't want to believe that you may have been tricked.
I still wait for your explanation.. not for the philosophy, which, though interesting, has little to do with the subject.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 06:47 PM |
|
|
|
Also books usually have higher resolution images and not "compressed for internet" so that argument fails, if I take Doom's word for it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 06:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also:Quote:
Dr. David Groves - Works for Quantech Image Processing and worked on some of the NASA photos.
There is neither a person of this name nor a corp that's called Quantech Image processing.
@ Doomforge
You don't seem to understand the point. The point is that some people just heaped a lot of garbage to a big pile to make it look impressive. But just because it's ALOT of garbage, some of which is looking a bit better than outright garbage, it's still not more than that: a pile of garbage.
I repeat for the last time: nothing WHATSOEVER at the time when it happens was somehow strange or wrong or out of the ordinary. EVERYTHING was possible and done. Countless people watched the rocket starts in Cap Canaveral. Th satellites are there. The material is there. The documents are there. Everything has been as it should be.
There is no reason in the world why this claim should be taken serious and honoured by wasting any time with that nonsense. If you want proof write a mail to one of the astronauts and ask him what he thinks about it.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 07:05 PM |
|
|
Like he would answer me.
Like he would tell me the truth, even if it's different.
(Like he'd know since all he has seen was the studio )
K, I see that you don't want to tell us why do you think it's garbage. You still keep claiming without proving. And you still forget that it isn't about that they haven't made it to moon.. it's about what they brought us as "evidence". The evidence sucks. 
Why does it suck? I think I already covered that.
But you still did not cover what you're trying to prove: that it doesn't.
And without your insight, we simply don't know why do you think so.
Aww, forget it. Never mind, it doesn't matter anyway.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 07:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is neither a person of this name nor a corp that's called Quantech Image processing.
Yes it does
Also JJ, maybe they HAVE been to the moon. Maybe they HAVE even taken those rocks as samples. But the images are fake, they tried to hide something - probably aliens, who knows?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 07:36 PM |
|
|
No, it doesn't. The youtube thing is a fake. There is neither a Dr. namend so nor a corp of that name. TRy to find them. You'd think that such a expert in such a leading corp would be mentioned in the internet somewhere. But there IS NOT!
IT'S A FAKE!
So much for your experts.
And it's garbage because I were there when it happened and I and the whole damn world THEN thought it was real for a plethora of convincing reasons. Do you really think fake youtube vidos and physics-for-dummys claims that remind me of the Paul-McCartney is dead hysteria when Abbey Road was published are enough to make people stop now that were thereand say, wait, we were tricked?
Please.
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 07:41 PM |
|
|
Being blind to arguments is never good.
Just because you believed it once, it doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
Admit it, some people just don't have the balls to say "what I believed in was wrong". They will just keep fighting back, using more and more ridiculous arguments.
This is not directed at you, ofc. Just a small analysis of how people usually behave in such situations. 
Still you haven't told us much besides "this is dumb" and "this is wrong". Oh well.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 08:01 PM |
|
|
No, it's the other way round. You have failed to tell us why a ten minute fake video of a non existing person from a non-existing corp should lend claims credibility that wouldn't survive even a hearing? Lies, claims, nothing substantial, fabricated videos. Why bother? It's just too unscientific. If they had a point they could challenge the NASA and everone still living. They have nothing and there is nothing.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 08:05 PM |
|
|
|
errr... what?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it doesn't. The youtube thing is a fake. There is neither a Dr. namend so nor a corp of that name. TRy to find them. You'd think that such a expert in such a leading corp would be mentioned in the internet somewhere. But there IS NOT!
IT'S A FAKE!
So much for your experts.
You could pay attention to what he said and probably calculate the stuff yourself.
Also this further underlines my theory with "that video is a fake" (even though it does have arguments, not just claims or "photos" made by "authorities") when it's not made by "official authorities".
Quote:
And it's garbage because I were there when it happened and I and the whole damn world THEN thought it was real for a plethora of convincing reasons.
Wasn't that the whole point in that? To make you believe BACK THEN without deep analysis? 
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
