Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Toepoke

The Last Man on the Moon

Recommended Posts

Thought I'd check this thread out after a few hours, it certainly took an interesting deviation!

Edited by Toepoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Huddersfield said:

Your link essentially proves the point I was trying to make. They had been used and tested and learned from, there was no first time lucky about it.

The official version of events claims that in 1969 NASA landed 2 men on the moon and safely returned them to earth (at the first time of trying).

13 hours ago, Huddersfield said:

Short of taking you to the Moon, though, & showing you the evidence, I guess we'll end up stuck in the usual position.

I could definitely be convinced that man really did land on the moon. I am open to it.

Let me explain my thinking by using some examples...

1. Obama (who is 5 months younger than me) has always refused to show his birth certificate. He even spent 2 million dollars on lawyers to try and avoid having to do so. What he did end up showing everyone was a doctored version of an electronic birth certificate that didn't even exist in 1961. So I'm kinda suspicious as to why he never showed his actual birth certificate to us. If you came to my house, I could show you my birth certificate in 30 seconds with nothing to hide. So what's the difference in one's ability to show their birth certificate between someone born in the NE of Scotland in 1961 and someone (allegedly) born in Hawaii in 1961? There really shouldn't be a difference. Just produce it in the same 30 seconds that I can produce mine. There... done. No controversy.

2. We were told that a hijacked 757 crashed into the Pentagon during the attacks on 9/11. Many don't believe that. So my question is, with so many security cameras on the world's most protected building, why don't they just show us? It makes it look as if there is something to hide. Why not simply go "Here's the video footage (from multiple angles) of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon." There... done. Easy peasy. No controversy.

3. Now, as far as the alleged moon landings go... Why didn't one of the 12 men to have allegedly walked on the moon just stand on a 2 square foot spot and film while they turned 360 degrees? "Hello planet earth... This is what it looks like when I turn around while standing on the moon. You will see all 360 degrees of what I see." Not just the 3 walls of a studio set like "Friends"...

gallery-1453286844-2575797.jpg

"You will not see cameras and a studio audience as the '4th wall' because we really are on the moon." There... done. No conspiracy.

My whole point is this... If what they are telling us is true and easily provable, then why in the name of 2+2=4 won't they lift their baby finger and prove it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Orraloon said:

I've travelled a lot further than that in my car. Piece of piss.

You haven't travelled 239,000 miles from earth in your car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The official version of events claims that in 1969 NASA landed 2 men on the moon and safely returned them to earth (at the first time of trying).

I could definitely be convinced that man really did land on the moon. I am open to it.

Let me explain my thinking by using some examples...

1. Obama (who is 5 months younger than me) has always refused to show his birth certificate. He even spent 2 million dollars on lawyers to try and avoid having to do so. What he did end up showing everyone was a doctored version of an electronic birth certificate that didn't even exist in 1961. So I'm kinda suspicious as to why he never showed his actual birth certificate to us. If you came to my house, I could show you my birth certificate in 30 seconds with nothing to hide. So what's the difference in one's ability to show their birth certificate between someone born in the NE of Scotland in 1961 and someone (allegedly) born in Hawaii in 1961? There really shouldn't be a difference. Just produce it in the same 30 seconds that I can produce mine. There... done. No controversy.

2. We were told that a hijacked 757 crashed into the Pentagon during the attacks on 9/11. Many don't believe that. So my question is, with so many security cameras on the world's most protected building, why don't they just show us? It makes it look as if there is something to hide. Why not simply go "Here's the video footage (from multiple angles) of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon." There... done. Easy peasy. No controversy.

3. Now, as far as the alleged moon landings go... Why didn't one of the 12 men to have allegedly walked on the moon just stand on a 2 square foot spot and film while they turned 360 degrees? "Hello planet earth... This is what it looks like when I turn around while standing on the moon. You will see all 360 degrees of what I see." Not just the 3 walls of a studio set like "Friends"...

gallery-1453286844-2575797.jpg

"You will not see cameras and a studio audience as the '4th wall' because we really are on the moon." There... done. No conspiracy.

My whole point is this... If what they are telling us is true and easily provable, then why in the name of 2+2=4 won't they lift their baby finger and prove it?

All these have been explained but not to conspiracy theorists satisfaction

The reason for that is no amount of explanation would be enough for conspiracy theorists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to your specific point about the moon landings, I believe there are several 360-degree panoramic photographs from the later moon landings. There also exists an array of video footage which I suspect would be incredibly difficult to recreate in a studio. I suppose it never occurred to them that 50 years later we'd have a conspiracy theory for everything. If we had the footage you want, I'd bet my house to a penny somebody would find something to prove it was a hoax.

I'm always intrigued what deniers of the landings think the tens of thousands of NASA scientists, technicians & planners thought they were doing? How would "they" keep so many people off the scent so that not even one of them smelled a rat? You couldn't keep that many people quiet really could you, nor really could you silence the TV crew that would have had to set up such a complex stage, film it, broadcast it, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

With regards to your specific point about the moon landings, I believe there are several 360-degree panoramic photographs from the later moon landings.

How does one go about taking a 360 degree photograph?

(Is there film shot by hand of what I am asking for?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

All these have been explained but not to conspiracy theorists satisfaction

The reason for that is no amount of explanation would be enough for conspiracy theorists

That's too easy to say.

I'm a Truther and I'm listening with an open mind.

Whatcha got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

How does one go about taking a 360 degree photograph?

(Is there film shot by hand of what I am asking for?)

 

 

Yes there is film. Does it comprise an astronaut doing a 360 spin to satiate conspirators of the future? I suspect not. Does that prove the landings never happened? Only, in my personal opinion anyway, if you've already decided they didn't & want to find obscure, essentially pointless, arguments to prove you own hypothesis. And you haven't answered my question about the tens of thousands employed on the space programme & how every man jack of them had the truth hidden, or were persuaded to hide it, for over a decade actively working on it & 45+ years since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

With regards to your specific point about the moon landings, I believe there are several 360-degree panoramic photographs from the later moon landings. There also exists an array of video footage which I suspect would be incredibly difficult to recreate in a studio. I suppose it never occurred to them that 50 years later we'd have a conspiracy theory for everything. If we had the footage you want, I'd bet my house to a penny somebody would find something to prove it was a hoax.

I'm always intrigued what deniers of the landings think the tens of thousands of NASA scientists, technicians & planners thought they were doing? How would "they" keep so many people off the scent so that not even one of them smelled a rat? You couldn't keep that many people quiet really could you, nor really could you silence the TV crew that would have had to set up such a complex stage, film it, broadcast it, etc.

 

Not to mention the Russians

17 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

That's too easy to say.

I'm a Truther and I'm listening with an open mind.

Whatcha got?

It's conveniently all available online

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ally Bongo said:

Not to mention the Russians

It's conveniently all available online

Tell me why we've never seen the Pentagon footage.

I've never ever heard of a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Tell me why we've never seen the Pentagon footage.

I've never ever heard of a reason.

http://www.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle/85-pentagon-area-surveillance-cameras

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Huddersfield said:

I'm always intrigued what deniers of the landings think the tens of thousands of NASA scientists, technicians & planners thought they were doing? How would "they" keep so many people off the scent so that not even one of them smelled a rat? You couldn't keep that many people quiet really could you, nor really could you silence the TV crew that would have had to set up such a complex stage, film it, broadcast it, etc.

Compartmentalisation is the biggest reason for not everyone on a project knowing what everybody else knows. Most would be on a need to know basis and on different security levels.

Being a member of a secret society (and being compromised) would be another reason.

Having your job and pension threatened (like the police and firemen gag order at ground zero) also.

Folk could have seen a 'live' simulation exercise on their monitors.

People could have built sets and been told that they were for training purposes.

08ba0120.jpe08df88b0.jpe087a75e0.jpe089515e0.jpe08a9f120.jpe08ff88b0.jpe091f48e0.jpe092868c0.jpe098027c0.jpe

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, biffer said:

I've said this before multiple times when this has cropped up. If anyone can come up with a convincing explanation of how the movement of dust was faked in the film from the moon, I'll be very surprised. It's never covered on any conspiracy website, basically because there isn't a way to do it except with the kind of cgi that's available now. Couldn't have been done in the sixties and seventies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'd like is to be able to turn on my TV or computer and get a channel that has a live 24 hour satellite feed of the earth turning.

I'd also like to be able to see a live 24 hour channel that shows all the satellites in orbit. (How many are up there anyway?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The official version of events claims that in 1969 NASA landed 2 men on the moon and safely returned them to earth (at the first time of trying).

I could definitely be convinced that man really did land on the moon. I am open to it.

Let me explain my thinking by using some examples...

1. Obama (who is 5 months younger than me) has always refused to show his birth certificate. He even spent 2 million dollars on lawyers to try and avoid having to do so. What he did end up showing everyone was a doctored version of an electronic birth certificate that didn't even exist in 1961. So I'm kinda suspicious as to why he never showed his actual birth certificate to us. If you came to my house, I could show you my birth certificate in 30 seconds with nothing to hide. So what's the difference in one's ability to show their birth certificate between someone born in the NE of Scotland in 1961 and someone (allegedly) born in Hawaii in 1961? There really shouldn't be a difference. Just produce it in the same 30 seconds that I can produce mine. There... done. No controversy.

2. We were told that a hijacked 757 crashed into the Pentagon during the attacks on 9/11. Many don't believe that. So my question is, with so many security cameras on the world's most protected building, why don't they just show us? It makes it look as if there is something to hide. Why not simply go "Here's the video footage (from multiple angles) of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon." There... done. Easy peasy. No controversy.

3. Now, as far as the alleged moon landings go... Why didn't one of the 12 men to have allegedly walked on the moon just stand on a 2 square foot spot and film while they turned 360 degrees? "Hello planet earth... This is what it looks like when I turn around while standing on the moon. You will see all 360 degrees of what I see." Not just the 3 walls of a studio set like "Friends"...

gallery-1453286844-2575797.jpg

"You will not see cameras and a studio audience as the '4th wall' because we really are on the moon." There... done. No conspiracy.

My whole point is this... If what they are telling us is true and easily provable, then why in the name of 2+2=4 won't they lift their baby finger and prove it?

I have no idea where my birth certificate is (nor do I care). Does that mean that I might never have been born? It's only a wee bit of paper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

One thing I'd like is to be able to turn on my TV or computer and get a channel that has a live 24 hour satellite feed of the earth turning.

I'd also like to be able to see a live 24 hour channel that shows all the satellites in orbit. (How many are up there anyway?)

The earth does spin. I saw it with my own eyes as I was driving my Ford Cortina into space. I was so distracted that I almost drove into the ISS. It's a lot fukin bigger than it looks, you know? I damn near keeched ma breeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Is there one back far enough to see the entire globe and all the satellites in orbit?

That wouldn't be possible. If you went far enough away to see the entire globe spinning, the satellites would be too tiny to see (it would be like trying to spot tadpoles in a pond from a jet plane). Plus they aren't all neatly lined up, they have a variety of different orbit types (some orbit in the commonly understood sense, others are geocentric; all have different angles and distances).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Can we see the entire globe spinning?

How many satellites are up there, and can we see a bunch of them at once?

Can you no just ask your pal God to take a quick pic on his phone and text you it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Can we see the entire globe spinning?

How many satellites are up there, and can we see a bunch of them at once?

 

Taking this as a face value question, you can see it spinning from the links given above, but as a whole; no. That's for several reasons but I think the main one is that a satellite couldn't hold (or more accurately be held in) an orbital position that far from Earth.

By seeing a bunch at once, do you mean from space? Again no (generally) because they are kept sizeable distances apart for obvious reasons.

I remember seeing the space shuttle following the ISS from my back garden a while ago which was beautiful...2 silent dots in the sky tracking each other, then vanishing when they went into the Earths shadow. From Earth, if you track a geostationary satellite, you can use long exposure in a dark environment such as these: 

http://home.clara.net/robertkeddie/Astro/geo.htm

There are over 2000 man-made satellites in orbit, plus any number of bits of space junk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×