pap

Would it now? First off, not everyone involved in a conspiracy knows one is taking place. Indulge me. Start from the opposite position. Imagine that there is no plan to actually go. The whole project is geared toward fraud. Do you still think 1000s of people would know?

How would this emergent family prove their accusations? What could they actually take to the media that would their claims stick? They'd either needs ton of unredacted source material from back in the day, physical evidence, or a ton of corroboration from other people willing to talk. So yep, valid point. Could all be blown out of the water if they have proof, but what sort of smoking gun proof could they provide? Would they be take at all seriously?

Aw, thanks Benj. Very nice of you to drop in with that. I can't really offer a reciprocal comment though, kid. Don't really know who you are, sir.

I've got to add my triumph over Europcar. Not only immensely satisfying, but a continual generator of blog hits. Consumer advice beats out left wing b0llocks, it'd seem Props to the SaintsWeb massive for the support.

Aye, I saw - and hope I atoned. Pay your fiver, sonny. Join the Full Member utopia, where you can talk sh!te all day.

Approaching this in reverse order; soz. Saw this last. I don't want to leave your points unremarked. Regarding photography; a lot of the anomalies have been explained by edge cases in photography. Not all of them. Regarding radiation; I've seen numerous, conflicting accounts of what Van Allen should do to spacecraft. I'm fine to concede that the risk may be lower than instant death, and that the time spent travelling through the field may have limited exposure. The point about renewed interest in the moon makes little sense though. We suddenly want to go there because they have water? Don't we already have a load of that here? Finally, I'm not convinced by any of the lunar photography. Hand on heart, can anyone honestly say it's definitive?

I don't see much of you Horley, and don't want to run a man down, but you have two posts left to make a valid point. The premise of this thread is that the Apollo landings were faked. You are arguing that because missions after Apollo 17 were cancelled, the missions themselves can't have been faked. What happens to your line of reasoning if they were all faked, and they just couldn't be arsed faking them anymore?

Ha! You fell into my cunning Scrabble nerd trap. Puncheon is an 8 letter word. The easiest way to play this is to use seven letters on a trailing N or P. Use all seven letters to form the word, and it's a double-word. Not only that, but you're bound to hit some multipliers along the way. That's at least 22 points better. Why are YOU so anti-Punch? Why can't you see his potential?

FFS, stainster - let's do one conspiracy at a time, shall we?

A-ha! 2001 was released before the moon landings. Not only that, but Star Wars happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Not only that, but Star Trek continuity is well messed up and cannot be relied on. According to them, the 1990s were all about the Eugenics Wars and Khan Noonian Singh taking over a large part of the planet, yet I largely remember Pearl Jam, Pulp and Playstation.

He comes out better in Scrabble too. Puncheon = 15pts Silva = 9pts Actually, a lot of our players are handy in Scrabble.

Nurse! Another Bear-virus case!

The retroreflectors are your proof then, Charlie? They could not have got to the moon in any other way? If this link is supposed to be the big b!tching smackdown you hope it to be, you're essentially saying that the retro reflectors are proof of human visitation. I disagree. For the sake of argument, let's assume we actually want to fake a moon landing and want to use retroreflectors as the basis of our physical proof. Logically, the best plan would be to get the retroreflectors there ahead of time on an unmanned mission. You get as many goes as you like. Once successful, pinpoint the location of your retroreflector, then structure the entire mission around hitting that spot. "Hey wow, we're here! We've bunged down retroreflectors! There's the proof! Fans of awkward questions will be totally fooled in 2012." It's a question of perspective. I get why you're offended. You are proud of your species' achievement. I can understand that; I'd like to be proud of that too. Well another achievement is the ability to think critically, to question what we are told. When assessing the veracity of something in dispute, our normal process is to examine evidence on both sides. You have presented these retroreflectors as irrefutable proof that man has visited the moon. I've posited a scenario that pretty much guarantees success on your burden of proof. Yep, it's strawman as f**k, but it doesn't require a bloke on the moon.

So, consensus? 2012 > 2011?* * From a personal, not boolean logic perspective, ta pedants

The video was about as bare bones as it gets. All it needs to be to make its point. Also, it's probably worth pointing out that in any given conspiracy, there's no one version of events that people reach a consensus on. There are elements that people can find common cause on; the rocket is a great example. Pretty much everyone agrees they went up. Some people dispute anyone being on them when they did, but then you've also got other documentary evidence from the pro-conspiracy lobby from inside the spacecraft, where it's evident they are trying to make the Earth look farther away than it is. Why would scientists and technicians agree to the plan? Well, how many of them actually had to know? If this was the direction that the wind was blowing, how many of them would speak up if they did? Is it not a little puzzling that Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, with bragging rights for eternity, basically kept schtum about his experiences his whole life? You're using patriotic symbolism as a reason why a hoax is impossible, yet the self-same notion can be used to justify a massive lie. Remember what was at stake here; massive clash of ideologies, fresh from the almost hot war in Cuba and the Kennedy assassination. The Russians were miles ahead of the US in the early 1960s, yet in less than a decade, the US was able to achieve a feat that no nation has managed before or since. From a propaganda perspective, it's utterly brilliant. If it is a hoax, the US have basically pulled the "yeah, I have ****ged a girl. It was a French girl I met on a holiday with my parents!". No-one is really in a position to disprove it, especially if there's a fair bit of photographic evidence. You're left with lingering doubts and a sense of "how the f**k did that happen?".

I thought you were Viking Warrior, not Petty Supergrass.

I'm not saying that they didn't go to the moon. But pretending to go to the moon is a lot easier

Current observation satellites can capture detail on Earth at about 0.41m per pixel. They generally sit in LEO ( defined as at least 320km up ), a much higher orbit than the LRO's present lunar orbit. The LRO's lunar orbit is at most 216 km. It is presently over the lunar poles around 50km up. So why is that image so crap, exactly?

Title of vid: Did Mythbusters get it wrong. Last part of very short vid: proving Mythbusters wrong Ever wonder why you'd have a program like Mythbusters and call it Mythbusters. Doesn't sound like the format had got a lot of editorial independence

Or alternatively, photo-shopped this year. The detail is shocking.

I'll take your "nature of light coloured rock" and raise this one. Nature of light coloured astronauts? [video=youtube_share;OEhHTgBsUOc]http://youtu.be/OEhHTgBsUOc

Good thread, TDD. It has been a good year for Chez pap. Didn't get to go to the Olympics; bit gutted about it but priorities. Really has been about that. Highlights for me:- Juvenile Unit #1 getting her GCSEs The missus getting a job The North Carolina trip New babies for much loved friends and family Saints promotion (Cov game closest I've come to a religious experience in years) It's an action packed end of the year though, so this list is provisional.

Yeah, and in isolation (photos) that might fly. The astronauts, when interviewed, said they couldn't see stars either ( or at least, explicitly stated that they couldn't recall ). What is your view on multiple light sources? They say they took none, yet the evidence of multiple light sources is all around.

Yeah, but that's just a specific insult wrapped up in a vague generalisation - implicitly tied to the notion that you are the ph neutral of normality. Apart from that, it's a very good point and not at all weird.

To refine their filmmaking skills? To enjoy the continued reverence accorded to the nation because of its achievement? To keep people distracted from the ongoing horror in Vietnam? Remember that the space race was all about propaganda ( Lyndon Johnson explicitly uses the word when making his case to Kennedy ). The US could command continuing respect during the Apollo missions for its technical achievements. If this was a hoax, they actually had every reason to reinforce it with additional data. It was certainly a propaganda coup too. Why wouldn't they repeat something that is worked in the past?