Mandy Lifeboats

@Seal I am interested in this topic. I believe there is ample proof that man landed on the moon. But there is also ample proof that NASA edits photographs and doesn't always tell the truth. But sadly I don't feel we can reasonably discuss these points because (imho) you are not objective. There is an excellent and amusing channel on YouTube which reviews conspiracy theories. They are very balanced. It's called "The Why Files" and I recommend the video "The moon landings". They give compelling evidence of various NASA misinformation throughout the years. It's well worth a watch.

Could you please give me an example of some evidence that would change your mind? No limits......blue sky thinking..... everything is possible except time travel.

That's the problem. If most of us were presented with 3 pieces of compelling evidence that the moon landings were faked- I think most of us would take those discrepancies on board. There is no evidence of the moon landings that would convince a conspiracy theory enthusiasts. The equipment pictured that is still on the moon was put there by robots.........moon rock can't be proven to have come from the moon even if its not from earth......etc. I am interested in this topic because conspiracies have existed throughout history and are undoubtedly still happening. But they are allowed to hide because some people are determined to prove ridiculous theories rather than look for actual conspiracies. I have found this thread hilarious and frustrating in equal measures. Some of those supporting conspiracy theories have made me far less inclined to believe anything they say.

I forgot. I danced on the Berlin Wall and I have a piece in my office.

Of course none of that could be true. I could be a CIA officer who is specifically deployed to counter conspiracy theories on Villa Talk. I could have been a member of this forum for years in order to build a credible backstory. My real name might not be Mandy Lifeboats.

None. Although I once shagged a girl from Japan. But let me tell you my experience regarding the Cold War. I was part of the UK Civil Defence Team. I spent days in bunkers training for a nuclear strike on the UK. I took part in dozens of wargames that definitely DID end in nukes. I know what the USSR tactics were likely to be. I know what the NATO response would be. I have seen with my own eyes bunkers, strategic stores, bomb shelters, emergency supplies and hidden infrastructure of the UK.

I really don't see how you can say the Cold War was artificial It almost ended in nuclear holocaust on at least 2 occasions. The Berlin Wall.....the Berlin blockade.......the division of Germany......the Cuban missile crisis.....the nuclear arms race.....several proxy wars.......the boycott of the Moscow Olympics......the boycott of the LA Olympics.....the Cambridge spy ring.....currency controls.....export bans.....the formation of NATO.....and many, many more. None of that was artificial.

Thanks for the reply I have no relevant qualifications. But I have 53 years of using my eyes and observing shadows. I also did some amateur photography including flash photography. I have seen thousands of real life examples of the shadow discrepancies you mention.

What qualifications do you hold on this area? Are you an avid photographer with years of experience? Could you outline your professional and academic experience with moon photography please? I am applying Occam's Razor. I am making presumptions based upon your academic qualifications, specialisms and interests. It will allow me to better assess your opinion if I can remove those assumptions from my Occam's Ravor assessment. Thanks. PS - I am happy to reciprocate if requested.

The people who post on here in defense of conspiracy theories must feel completely outnumbered. That's because they are. Both on this forum and in real life. In my opinion it's because we (humans) enjoy spending time with people who value our views and opinions. Therefore we stick together with our belief group and receive a distorted view of what the average man thinks and does. 99% of conspiracy theories are utter rubbish. Anyone who genuinely believes the moon landings were faked despite the large amount of scientific evidence to the contrary is not capable of taking a balanced view. But isn't religion a perfect example where people believe in something despite there being no evidence of its existence and numerous pieces of evidence to discredit it. Millions still believe that a god created the world in 7 days based upon an old book. The bible clearly says that the earth was created before stars and light. Science tells us that this is wrong. But people still believe a religion that is flawed and disproven from the very beginning onwards. We really are a stupid species.

Err.........no. This article addresses the matter and traces the origin of the myth. It's written by named industry experts and scientists. The picture above was made by an unknown person, at an unknown time with an unknown level of expertise. Which one do you think we should believe? https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-musical-pitches-idUSL1N2P915O

A Ukrainian suicide drone falls into a Russian trench but fails to explode. So he shoots it. What happens next?

I think we should start our own conspiracy theory and come up with evidence. Theory - Birmingham Shitty FC is a mafia run crime synicate that pretends to be a football club to launder illegal money. Proof - Tom Brady was a notorious NFL cheat. He has lied on numerous occasions. Jasper Carrot isn't his real name. It's a false identity. Sty Andrews is in poor repair. That's because the money for repairs goes to the mafia. The badge is a football and an earth. This represents a world wide group (the mafia) using football to launder money. Several SHA players have been Italian and or had criminal records.

That's the point. If you hear hooves it's reasonable to assume a horse. There is an outside chance that it's a zebra. Those are reasonable assumptions. Assuming it's a headless horseman riding a horse isn't a reasonable assumption. It's nonsense. Occam’s Razor is a wonderful tool. I literally used it every day in my professional life. Putting it simply: the more assumptions you have to make the less likely it's correct. I hear hooves. Its a horse. 1 assumption. I hear hooves. Its a zebra. It's escaped from a zoo. There is a zoo within zebra walking range. 3 assumptions. I hear hooves. Ghosts exist. Ghosts are manifestations of the dead. The ghost concerned is a human figure. That human is dead. That human had his head cut off. That human became a ghost. That ghost is riding a horse. A horse can become a ghost. The horse is dead. The horse became a ghost. 10 assumptions.

If you hear hooves it's probably a horse. There's a small chance it's a zebra. It's not a headless horseman.

This thread typifies the problem with conspiracy theories. 99% of academics who work in the space industry have no doubt that humanity put a man on the moon. Nothing you can say will make me think they are wrong and conspiring with others to hide the truth. Equally, some people will always believe in the 1%. There have been some excellent posts on here regarding the moon landings. People who really know their stuff have posted excellent explanations. I have found it incredibly interesting.

I believe that discussing conspiracy theories is important. In fact, it's vital. Massive conspiracies exist and are historical fact. Hitler got millions of people to believe that the Jews undermined Germany during WW1 and were a lower form of humanity than true Germans. He manipulated evidence,altered history and killed millions based upon a lie. 1% of conspiracy theories are probably true. But they can hide amongst the other nonsense. We need intelligent people questioning whether there is evidence that Iraq has nukes before we invade. What we don't need is gullible people forming opinions based SOLELY upon one side of the story. I remember the famous Wogan appearance by David Icke. Most of the interview showed he was talking rubbish. But he did say that capitalism was going lasting damage to the earth that might lead to disastrous consequences. No-one too that seriously because he also said wearing purple shell suits would help and that Australia would sink a year later. David Icke is proof that the 1% of validity can hide amongst the 99% of rubbish.

That's why the source documents are important. I know that you weren't South Africa's third highest goal scorer. You were only fifth.

Expert view. See the section "Hoax Claims and Rebutals". Read the entry AND the attached footnoted articles and source documents. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Yeah. But that's what I want them to think I think. I think.

1. NASA needed to rent or buy a source soundstage, outfit it with the lunar landscape and various props. Lights would have been installed. Decorators would have painted the background. Security guards would have protected the site. Tha astronauts would have needed to rehearse their actions. Someone would have edited the footage and slow it down to give the effect of gravity. Someone would have to maintained the site of removed it. Someone would have to edit and fake various video footage. The astronauts and the entire group control crew would have needed to produce their footage. 2. The Cold War? Korean War? Vietnam War? Cuban missile crisis? 3. NASA. They are the experts.

OK......let's break this down a little. If the moon landings were fake NASA would have faked 9 missions (I think). None of the thousands of people involved in that fakery mentioned it at the time. The USSR who were the biggest rivals never denounced the landings as fake and actually acknowledge it happened. The moon landing sites can be seen and have been reported by many countries. There is a reflector on the moon that allows scientists from any country to measure the distantance between us an the moon by bouncing a laser off it. What's led to all the discrepancies you mention? 1. NASA does re-touch photographs for publicity issue. 2. Original photographs are copied, reprinted, re-copied and faked by the press. Many of the photographs you claim to have seen aren't the originals. They are a bad copy of a bad copy. 3. You pose question that I am not qualified to answer. But I guess neither are you or the people who made the video. You ask me if the rocket taking off looks right. I have only ever seen 1 launch. (The space shuttle in the 2000's.) The experts say there are no discrepancies. Neither of us are qualified to doubt that. 4. Even if I accept that all the photographs and videos are distorted due to editing, copying and fakery - its sill no proof that the moon landings were faked. Its proof that publicity of the moon landings was faked.

I thought the same. But its as ridiculous as "the world is flat", "the SAS killed Diana", "your nan is sending a message from beyond the grave" or " vapour trails from planes are chemical treatments" or "Q-ANON". So it might be sincere.

We live in a world where politicians lie, corporations have hidden agendas and secrets are kept. I 100% agree. But I find it very difficult when people spot a small discrepancy and then blow it up to something it clearly isn't. For example - There are no stars in the photographs taken on the moon. This shows it was faked in a studio. No. It shows that a small 1970s camera strapped to an astronauts chest was incapable of taking pictures of stars because it would have needed a lengthy exposure time. I also find it difficult when people (let's use David Icke as an example) come up with these amazing theories with zero evidence and make millions from it. David Icke creates content for financial gain. If you can come up with a specific topic I would be genuinely interested to debate it. But let me finish by saying that I am not picking out "conspiracy theories" as being anything unusual. I don't believe in ghosts, contacting the dead, gods, fortune telling, witchcraft, Santa Claus or that people pay money to watch Birmingham FC.

I am no expert but isn't this one really obvious to anyone with GCSE physics??? The plane operates reaches Mach 3.2 in the atmosphere. It is subject to resistance from the air. The spacecraft reaches Mach 23 outside the atmosphere or on the very edges of the atmosphere. Air resistance is much lower. It also has specialist heat shield to combat hitting the atmosphere at very high speed. The plane does not need this heat shield.