pap

Such as?

Go read the Savile thread and weep, Jamie. I think you'll find I was the first person to back up your guilty as hell statement. Still, don't let facts get in the way of a good jibe, kid. Christ, you'd have nothing left.

They tackled some. Ignored the difficult bits. May well have had a pre-determined set of conclusions with a title like Mythbusters, mightn't it?

Well, I suspect that you might not be treating me quite so seriously... ...but no character assassination from the Ken Tone grassy knoll! Cheers, fella!

Right, Charlie. Your points in turn. Your first statement is either untrue, or indicative of a man who hasn't read much of the forum, or indeed, his own posts. Your second point. If you want to portray yourself as a reasonable bloke with something to add to the debate, smearing posters who hold different views isn't going to win you many admirers. On your third point, I've already set out conditions that'd immediately force me to conclude that the landings were genuine. You say that's invalid, because it'll never happen. Too expensive, apparently. You asked me how a retroreflector might get onto the moon without a physical human to place it there. I countered that the first steps into space involved flights without humans. Was Laika operating the launch controls, Charlie? I even suggested how you might deliver a mirror to the moon and deploy it, citing the ability to try many times and technology that was known to exist at the time. Your point about being open to reason is brilliant given its provenance, Charlie. I am more than happy to be corrected, but when was the last time you didn't stick up for the status quo? Every film or TV program you recommend is ages old, and you frequently moan about anything new. If I had to make a value judgment, and trust me - I'm going to be a lot more charitable, my assessment would be that you're a bit stuck in your ways. That's fair enough, sir - but I find that difficult to reconcile with your accusations of me being closed-minded. I'll believe anything when I see enough evidence, and my opinion on this, as with all but the most outlandish conspiracy theories, is to keep an open mind.

Ah nuts. Sorry to break up the levity, boys.

I dunno why you keep on offering up disputed evidence as evidence, Charlie. It's a photo of a lunar lander and a retroreflector. The central theme of this thread is whether man landed on the moon. So, assuming planned hoax as starting point, what value does your proof have to me? I say again, it's a photo.

ms pap, a practising Catholic (at least in the sense she needs to try harder ) is a bit confused as to how a devout Catholic would even consider suicide. The DJs have a measure of indirect complicity in this; but then so must others, including anyone who was pressuring her at work and of course, the woman herself. I worked with someone, won't say who, who "announced" a big name transfer on a club's official website. It was all boll0cks. He was a fan of the club in question, and had uploaded some wishful thinking test data. Alright, not quite on a scale with this incident, but it got national press. My firm took overall responsibility, the lad got his wrists slapped lightly, but no-one outside of our office actually knew the full skinny or who it was. Not every organisation shows as much solidarity with its staff.

That too, Ian. (Frankly, what man isn't?)

Interesting question. It it was proved to be fake, I don't think much would happen, apart from the fact that the US would be internationally renowned for being dishonest for something like eternity. Opinions on the US differ, depending on where you are in the world and/or your political leanings, but the halo has never completely fallen off from a Western European perspective. I think at the very least, it'd be an indelible stain on the nation's character. To your second question, why do people have such a problem with a different view. Well, if I was half the nut job these people made me out to be, I'd be insisting that dissenting voices were shadowy government plants. And yet, I have the same conversations with lifelong friends about this stuff, and some of them get just as animated. It's a common reaction. I could sit here and idly assign labels to those who been kind enough to throw one my way, but when it comes down to it, people don't like to believe stuff they don't want to hear or know.

Hello Bear. Didn't want to leave this unremarked. You're right. Some people will never be satisfied. All doubt would disappear in my mind if they had an international verifiable mission where we got live feeds. I know that's a tad pricey, but I've been asked what'd make me happy. That's pretty much it. You are also right about me enjoying a bit of debate.

Ah, Turkish you dry c##t. You do make me chuckle. Am I this bloke? [video=youtube_share;Y4H4KSzSWB4]

Keep it fuzzy? Hardly. I've given a layman account of how I think it can be done. I am no expert on late 60s space propulsion, navigation or robotics, but the general rule of space exploration is to send a probe somewhere you plan to send a human. The Russians started unmanned, then used animals, then used cosmonauts. You're trying to use a lack of technology to prove your case when in reality, automated systems were essential in the nascent days of both space programs.

Your opening post on this thread governs the level of respect you're getting, Benj. You are fair game.

Probe. Appropriate weighting. Control booster. Time. Automated cover release activated by a mechanical trigger ( e.g the feet touching down. ). That about cover it? It's a lay response, I know. I suppose that technology was beyond the moon visitors of the late 1960s.

Ooh. Format change. That must be it! Super stuff, Benj. You're really holding your own! Bit weird how they subsequently changed format from extant to disappeared, eh sir?

Why would any mission take years to accomplish, Charlie? After all, we already know how to do it. We've known how to do it for 40 years. I've expanded on the retroreflector argument loads, and don't fancy repeating points I've already made. In summary though, what's easier? Sending a bunch of probes to the moon hoping that one will stick, or send people to do it. Oh, and the non-existent 1980s moon bases? You trying to prove your point or mine?

Originals gone missing as well, apparently http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landings_tapes_reported_missing

Posted earlier in response to "why fake it multiple times" query.

Indeed, trousers. Show us the real evidence! Did you know that the media weren't given a direct feed of the events? They had to film a NASA projection.

That's why I stated that it should be an international mission. Do you reckon the Chinese, for example, would keep quiet if capable of delivering a massive propaganda blow?

Whitey G. To get the shots of Earth you mention, you really don't need to be on the moon. In fact, the exhibit you're submitting for the defence is also being relied on by the prosecution. Same thing with the flag, sir. You're saying it can't be a hoax because the flag didn't move when it was still (?!). The pro-conspiracy argument takes the entire "performance" of the flag into account. You also mention the lander, citing that dust needn't necessarily be on the feet. Again, the pro-conspiracy crowd are using the lander for their own ends. They point to the pristine area around the base of the lander. If your dust was displaced, wouldn't there be some evidence of that happening under the lander? I will happily admit my knowledge of space isn't all that, but I do know what happens when you take a picture of someone with the sun behind them, or when they're shrouded in shadow.

Then why make the analogy? You said earlier that any extraordinary claim must be backed up with extraordinary evidence. I think we can both agree that "I've been to the moon" is a pretty extraordinary claim. The reason that this theory exists in the first place is because people are questioning the evidence associated with this extraordinary claim. It's your right to assess my posts in any way you wish, Charlie. The reverse applies. If I had to summarise your input so far, I'd say you waded in with what you thought would be a killer idea, came up a little short and went to the plan B of thinly veiled insults. Your last question deserves a bit of respect though. It's a fair one, and easily answered. Personally, I'd be happy with an international mission with a continual live feed. If they land there and find all the stuff that has been left there since 1969 and the images are verifiably live, that really is me happy.

Talk about diminishing returns, Charlie. Blimey mate. I appreciate you taking to time to quality your argument, but in future, I'd strongly suggest with going with something more that makes more sense. Let's take your Japan point as an example. You assert that because you have never been there, it might not exist. And I thought my point was a little strawman... Thing is mate, over a hundred million people live in Japan. The country has played a massive role in the events of the last 100 years. Furthermore, if I was under the impression that Japan might not exist, I could go there to double-check. The rest of your post is just unsourced conjecture. I appreciate that you may be reeling from your retroreflector "slam dunk" going awry. Is this your best response?

Just seen this little nugget. I'll admit; I love a good conspiracy theory. I'd believe them all if I could. Perhaps the best thing with any participation is the consequent abuse. This is pretty standard fare is you ask me; the old mention of a "strange reason" implying I'm a bit of a nutter and have some super-secret agenda.