Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't believe man has landed on the moon, so any of the missions which claim to have successfully landed a man on the moon.

Have you actually researched this? It really doesn't take long to prove that the moon landings were quite genuine.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Have you actually researched this? It really doesn't take long to prove that the moon landings were quite genuine.

To be sure, there is a mountain of data seemingly in support of the manned landings.
But again, the question arises: if the landings were genuine, why the need for presenting support which was, in fact, fraudulent?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"If the mission was as presented, why was there a need to fake ANY images whatsoever?"

WHAT FAKE IMAGES?

I/we have seen no [official] faked images.
You have shown us no faked images.
No serious investigations have ever demonstrated any faked images.
No hostile to the USA countries have ever demonstrated that the moon landings were faked.
And every program/video/site I have ever seen that claims something 'faked' about the moon landings
has been trivially easy to prove wrong.

Show us these faked images you claim exist, and explain why you believe them to be faked.

Otherwise, you are making assertions without evidence, and as such you assertions can be dismissed
without evidence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

Sandy Hook, for one.

Is your Sandy Hook conspiracy more or less ridiculous than the moon landings being faked?

Originally posted by googlefudge
WHAT FAKE IMAGES?

I/we have seen no [official] faked images.
You have shown us no faked images.
No serious investigations have ever demonstrated any faked images.
No hostile to the USA countries have ever demonstrated that the moon landings were faked.
And every program/video/site I have ever seen that claims something 'faked' about the moon landi ...[text shortened]... ing assertions without evidence, and as such you assertions can be dismissed
without evidence.

Maybe he is referring to all the computer animated images that were used to report on trips in space by NASA. I am certain everyone must be aware of those animated images. He also may be influenced by reports like these:

NASA FAKED A SHUTTLE IMAGE!!!!!

By Phil Plait | January 29, 2009 7:30 am

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/29/nasa-faked-a-shuttle-image/

The space travel hoaxes 1959-2015

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel1.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe he is referring to all the computer animated images that were used to report on trips in space by NASA. I am certain everyone must be aware of those animated images. He also may be influenced by reports like these:

NASA FAKED A SHUTTLE IMAGE!!!!!

By Phil Plait | January 29, 2009 7:30 am

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/ ...[text shortened]... huttle-image/

The space travel hoaxes 1959-2015

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel1.htm

I don't think that is such a big deal. It is not like the fake moon landing conspiracy. That image is just a representation.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I don't think that is such a big deal. It is not like the fake moon landing conspiracy. That image is just a representation.

The post is completely tongue-in-cheek, it's by the Bad Astronomer who made his
name debunking the moon landing [is fake] conspiracy theories.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

Originally posted by googlefudge
WHAT FAKE IMAGES?

I/we have seen no [official] faked images.
You have shown us no faked images.
No serious investigations have ever demonstrated any faked images.
No hostile to the USA countries have ever demonstrated that the moon landings were faked.
And every program/video/site I have ever seen that claims something 'faked' about the moon landi ...[text shortened]... ing assertions without evidence, and as such you assertions can be dismissed
without evidence.

YouTube

Although I don't subscribe to everything within the video, some of the points are irrefutable.
Specifically, if the window is filled with an image of the earth from 130,000 miles out, how does the arm of one of the astronauts show up in the shot?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xStEQK2-xlY

Although I don't subscribe to everything within the video, some of the points are irrefutable.
Specifically, if the window is filled with an image of the earth from 130,000 miles out, how does the arm of one of the astronauts show up in the shot?

It's a complete load of bunk.

Just got to the part where this moronic 'narrator' is claiming that this is a view through a circular
window showing a tiny fraction of the earth as seen from low Earth orbit, as opposed to the entire
Earth as seen from far away...

This is stupid for many reasons.

First and foremost... in Low Earth Orbit [LEO] you go around the entire Earth in [depending on your orbit]
~90 minutes... Which means that if you were in LEO and filming the Earth far from the window and thus
only seeing a tiny portion of that view then YOU CAN SEE THE EARTH MOVING underneath you.
You can see this clearly in the shuttle and ISS films.
In this shot the view is not changing [at least not fast enough to see] and that alone proves it cannot be shot
from LEO.

The "very bright and 'near'" Earth in the window is camera flare from overexposure.. The Earth is bright,
way brighter than the moon.

And the Van Allan belts are not a problem

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation

Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!

It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.

Link included in the quote:

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html


Also. Here are satellite photos of the landing sites on the moon.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/



There are mountains of evidence that we went to the moon and that it is possible to go to the moon.
So when you get something that you don't understand, [apparently like this] then you don't jump to
"it must all be a conspiracy and EVERYTHING else is wrong/faked".
You must factor in the prior probabilities and ALL the evidence when assessing the likelihood of competing
explanations.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xStEQK2-xlY

Although I don't subscribe to everything within the video, some of the points are irrefutable.
Specifically, if the window is filled with an image of the earth from 130,000 miles out, how does the arm of one of the astronauts show up in the shot?

can you please explain how the retroreflectors got to the moon?

and can you please explain recent photos taken from space of tranquillity base?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
can you please explain how the retroreflectors got to the moon?

and can you please explain recent photos taken from space of tranquillity base?

How many retroflectors are on the moon?
To whom do they belong?

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's a complete load of bunk.

Just got to the part where this moronic 'narrator' is claiming that this is a view through a circular
window showing a tiny fraction of the earth as seen from low Earth orbit, as opposed to the entire
Earth as seen from far away...

This is stupid for many reasons.

First and foremost... in Low Earth Orbit [LEO] y ...[text shortened]... or probabilities and ALL the evidence when assessing the likelihood of competing
explanations.

You didn't answer the question.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Is your Sandy Hook conspiracy more or less ridiculous than the moon landings being faked?

Sandy Hook is so far removed from reality, it is painful to think anyone ever took any part of it seriously.
While the moon landing is somewhat supported with some very peculiar anomalies, SH is nearly completely lacking in support with nothing but anomalies.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
can you please explain how the retroreflectors got to the moon?

and can you please explain recent photos taken from space of tranquillity base?

How do you know retroreflectors are on the moon?

Maybe photoshop and Hollywood animations were used to fake them.

We are just taking their word that those are actual photos of what is claimed.

It is like believing by faith in abiogenesis or creation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How do you know retroreflectors are on the moon?

Maybe photoshop and Hollywood animations were used to fake them.

We are just taking their word that those are actual photos of what is claimed.

It is like believing by faith in abiogenesis or creation.

Because most days [100's of times a year] since the relevant Apollo Mission people
have been bouncing laser beams off of the retro-reflectors to determine the distance to
the moon.

This can be done by anyone [any nation] with a decent sized telescope and a laser.

You fire a laser at a random spot on the moon and you get no reflection, you fire at the
retro-reflectors and you get returning laser pulses.

It's not possible with current technology to fake this, let alone back in the 60's/70's.