Seal

yeah - it was pretty weak. I guess technically it 'counts' but I thought it was mostly quite weak.

Sometimes if we encounter something that seems paradoxical, by virture of paradoxes not really being able to exist if reality is as presented, they can quite easily be navigated by checking our assumptions. You have assumed a lot of things about what is in my head. I think maybe I haven't explained the difference when I accept something is possible, vs accept something is real. I will also accept things on the basis that I don't really have a valid reason to not accept them. I take an interest is space. I like looking at celestial bodys. Don't really have much interest in humans adventures in space. People have provided all kinds of evidence and I have responded to my thoughts on that in most instances. May have missed a few. I must admit to not finding a lot of it compelling. Debating over a flag or pole or shadow on a particular photo is not really that important when the entire breadth of the documentation appears ridiculous - to my perception. The landscapes. The videos. The movements. The technology. The narrative. The body languages. The inconsistencies. All of it looks ridiculous - to my perception. I appreciate this is entirely subjective, as is anyones perception. I am not really worried about changing others perceptions. One could argue all day about whether the photos from nasa of an overshoe years after other photos are the same or not, but at the end of the day - for me - it takes a huge suspension of reality and belief to accept that the below video is remotely real and not staged. To my mind and perception it is laughable. This isn't the only shot. Literally the entire breadth of the adventure is riddled with - to my eyes flimsiness and inconsistencies. So the evidence needs to be a lot lot stronger than you have provided. I know you think it is strong evidence, but to be honest, I don't agree. And if I were writing your point, I would have started it with, "Once upon a time, maybe, we all lived in caves..."

dude you are still appealing to an authority that the rock is actually from the moon. Or any of the comparative rocks. It requires an appeal to an authority that moon rocks have a certain composition - and repeat.

I didn't say the shadows should be parallel. I said they didn't look right. There were responses of shadows at angles. I stand by that. I think you missed some points with regards to the photons. That the experiment could be achieved before indicates that there similar photons. That post the laser reflector they results 'improved' could easily be attributable to statistical manipulation. You showed a theory that is logically consistent but that I don't think explains the real world. The footprints don't match the boots. You suggested that they match the over shoes. I am not convinced that this is not an after thought after they got caught with a lie. I questioned the point of overshoes. But I am not trying to say what is true. I am trying to say what I struggle to see as being true. In the absence of me not seeing enough evidence. I haven't tried to provide evidence although in some ways I guess I have. You just offered to help me understand why they are beyond doubt an event that occurred. I am just explaining why I doubt it. On this point I would like to add that I do sincerely appreciate your time on this. I think you have engaged with someone of a different view in a decent way. Safe. I disagree that you have debunked a single thing. You have provided an explanation. Which may be enough for your mind. But your explanations don't provide the assurance other people might need. Not that anyone has better assurance levels than other to an extent we all shape our own realities. I have responded seperately to London Lax. That satellite photo pushes my you gotta be joking buttons. But I am sure it does not do that to you too. That is cool. I have noticed you have posted a long message a few pages ago that I haven't noticed. I am sorry for not noticing everything. I have been a bit busy with work/football/family/hobbies/and also sifting through a lot of comments on here that perhaps I didn't consider as polite and respectful as yours. I will try and respond. But also to try and slow down the rate of this thread will do so with greater intervals. My point for the minute is that - I fail to see any convincing evidence from a non-authority figure. This means that to believe it is so, I would require faith. I have no faith in nasa,. I think there is sufficient evidence to perhaps mistrust nasa. Even if it is not as far as to outright call them liars. For this reason I cannot believe the apollo missions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I feel that there should be more evidence of man kinds greatest achievement than there is. Better evidence also.

I do appreciate this is valuable information, and don't wish to say it doesn't quite sate the request. I went to moscow and hung out with russian cosmonauts once, they signed some photos for me, and like you they seemed convincing as did their equipment. Out of interest do you recall the astronauts name? Not to do like backgroung checking or testing, I am just quite interested. It might surprise you to know but I am a bit of a space head. My dads best mate has the largest private observatory in the country and I love going there and there ain't nothing cooler to look at up there than the moon.

Thanks. I would consider of space exploration agencies also authorities. As I have alluded to before I don't necessarily perceive world affairs in the same perspective - I suspect nation states are kind of like middle management. That's another story. My point is that I see space agencies as being different spokes of the same bike. With regards of the tracking of missions by independent parties. This just implies crafts went to the moon. Not that they were depositing people on the moon. What does this evidence tell us about the nature of the missions? Not a lot. With regards to the moon rocks - Nasa have been caught out and admitted that some provided to a Dutch museum were petrified wood, not a moon rock. I would be interested to know how one proves a rock is from the moon rather than from the ground. The article says they have been aged, but this is a very very very unreliable method. The moon rocks are also an appeal to authority. Retroreflecters have been discussed extensively. Lets just leave it that they don't actually provide evidence that people have been put on the moon - also require an appeal to authority. Again - artifacts of things on the moon are not proof that humans walked on the moon. With regards to the satellite pictures, I think this also falls under the 'dubious' evidence list? It is an appeal to authority also. As such they are either not proof apollo astronauts walked to the moon. In my mind anyway. I appreciate in yours in may well be different. And that is a beautiful thing.

Costs billions of tax payers money. I am not saying there is no motivation. I am sure there would be. I am just saying that to have a suspicion it is false it is not a prerequisite to know what the motive is.

But they are not voices of authority on the subject. They are scientists who ultimately are not privvy to the actual events, like you and I perhaps with different levels of comprehension of certain things. But ultimately they are also at the whim of presentation of events to them.

I don't believe a theory. I have no belief. I prefer the term suspicions. I do agree the why would be very helpful. I just don't have it. I could give possibilities but none I would get off the fence for. Other people argue the Soviets did win much of the space race. Personally I don't buy into there being a space race as presented.

That would be really good evidence to be honest. Scepticism does not always need to be stifled I am happy being sceptical. To be clear I haven't been arguing no one has been to the moon, but that the apollo missions didn't go there. I have no knowledge of what I don't know so cannot preclude the possibility that someone ahs been to the moon in an unpublicised way - although I feel this is unlikely, I would never hang my hat on that. So I guess to answer your question. I would like the evidence to come from a source that isn't the person making the claim. It would need to be stronger to my reason and intuition than the ample holes and inconsistencies in the current body of evidence.

I agree it is a very interesting question and agree, the most interesting. However I do not know why, I am just saying that you do not need to know why something happened to think that what happened is false. I have heard ideas. But none really stand out for me.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't think that have a diagram of how something can happen is proof that it has happened. Recall an earlier part of this discussion. You pointed out the effect of perspective on the size of the continents. What you said was correct. However it didn't correlate to the images I showed you. In this instance, you and Blandy have provided an explanation. Nonetheless, it is not evidence the apollo missions went to the moon. The main question I feel you haven't answered - although I appreciate that you have clearly been comprehensive in your replies, I did not mean to indicate otherwise - is for evidence that we went to the moon that doesn't rely on the word of an authority?

I understood your analogy. It was fine. It is correct in showing your point. However, analogies are by their nature quite limited. And there are reasons why I disagree that the analogy you are making actually reflects what is said to be seen in reality. The sun gives off all of the electromagnetic spectrum and we know that the experiment, without a reflector could be achieved before there "was said" to be a reflector on the moon. We have also know that there are plenty of other reasons, including - updated theories - that are said to be responsible, plus looking into it it it looks like the ways the data received is processed is via matters such as residual analysis, which involves including predicted data to get your actual data vs measured data. Whilst I appreciate there is a purpose for this, it also isn't quite the best way, and is certainly a method of data analysis associated with, y'know. Fudging (when your data is from taking data versus a model or measured outcomes, you are on quite shaky grounds that could lead into the realms of making stuff be how you want it, you can even use it to incorporate updated theories into the actual result) . The problem with the analogy as you have said is not that its internal logic doesn't make sense, but more in that the menu is not the meal, their main use is to explain something. Your analogy could be made more realistic by, having moving walls, and moving throwers. There is a difference between the plane and the moon situation. A few hundred miles, but also that it is commonly replicated and we can see that it is being done and one is a rather ludicrous notion which has never really been replicated outside of a few locations using a very shaky methodology. Principles are not evidence that something has happened. Nor are diagrams. Extraordinary claims - like that there is a laser reflecting something on the moon - are often said to require extraordinary proof. I am not sure of the universal correctness of this claim, but I feel it applies for me here. Experiments were achievable before a reflector. Experiment is quite hard to believe occur, I think I will stick to the side of being sceptical until the logic (not the internal logic of your analogy but the logic of the nature of the results, the history of the explanation, and a clarity of what the results show is given). Don't forget that models don't always - more often than not - describe reality. Being able to draw a diagram of how something works is very different from it actually working how you say. Nonetheless, it isn't proof, as we have discussed that the apollo missions went to the moon, and that we can agree on.

Sorry - I missed this before. I don't know. To think something is false does not require you to know why something was falsified..

I haven't taken the view that there are reflectors on the moon. I have taken the view that having reflectors on the moon doesn't prove that the apollo missions went to the moon. I understand your analogy. The issue for me is if the moon is also reflecting light. And sunlight is of a similar frequency to the photons. How are these photons of a similar frequency disambiguated? At optimal output sunlight is of a similar frequency that the apollo laser experiment was juicing out. I appreciate that it could be that there is a difference. And how then could the same effect be achieved before there was a reflector. As such I think it is an incorrect analogy because relative to each other the earth and the moon will be moving at speeds that would make not only hitting the target far more difficult but getting any results back from the target. I could get on board, a little more, if the targets were still. I am assuming ambient green light has 532nm, and sunlight 500nm at optimum output. A bit of a difference, still within the same broad wavelength. So essentially the moon is aglow with similar photons to what you are sending out. MAybe it is possible, but I doubt it. I don't see how they could filter out one (or a small amount) or photons, from a far larger amount of the same wavelenght? Furthermore, I would like to know where you have seen evidence of such an experiment since it can only be done by great expense and in certain places? If you haven't how can you be sure that the results are actually just results? Or just things that are published?

i disagree that it proves such a thing. Occams razor is like an indicator. A theory if you will, perhaps best usable as a rule of thumb. Not more than that. For me occams razor suggests the apollo missions never went to the moon. You have also not responded to a number of points I have made. I assume similarly to me, that this has just become a bit of a messy thread there have been a lot of questions/points/comments fired my way. I have missed it. Later I will go and find it and give a response.

The yellow arrows were clear and helpful. However I am not convinced it is a shadow from the flagpole. I appreciate there is a possibility the terrain could be obscuring it. However I think, and taking into account the other photos you have provide, it looks like it shouldn't. I think from the base to the end there would be more evidence. The flag looks very still in the video you posted. It moves slightly, but it is curved round. The point is that one flag you can see it straight until the end. This can be confirmed at the top as it has a structure holding it up. In the second photo and the video it is curved in on itself. Nowhere in the video does it show the shape of the other photo. I would also argue the shadow of the module is very different in both, and possibly, although I am not convinced that the relative positions of the astronaut and the flag don't really tally taking into account the perspectives of the photographer.

But similarly just because someone says something is true then it doesn't mean it is true. Just because you think something is possible does not mean it happens. And like I have said, the issue is mainly that having a reflector up there is not proof the apollo missions went to the moon. Unmanned expeditions have also deposited things. And also I still fail to see how the relatively few photons that come back can be attributed to the reflector rather than the 'noise' or reflected from the moon itself.

Sorry, but I am not convinced that this the shadow from the flag pole. Or even that it is a shadow at all. Wouldn't go as far as saying it was a photoshop. In the contours leading up to the mound the flag was placed upon I feel you would still see it. Also curious as to what appears to be flag movements between your two shots. Seems like the wind has blown it a bit. Never really been satisfied by the explanations about this. It seems very fixed in the video. And also it looks very much more folded in one of those photos than the other. You can see on the photo it top edge is straight to the end. On the second picture and on the video it is bent around Also the amount of footprints where he walks, shuffles, moon walks don't really seem to match up but I am unsure.

I don't think it was addressed sufficiently to remove my incredulity. Like you say. My point is also that you could not disambiguate that photon from the other photons from the moon or even the ones not reflected by the reflector

I disagree. I don't necessarily always think that a five minute google is enough to know what happened on the moon or in a studio decades ago.

It should be a lot lot lot longer bearing in mind the shadows from the module and the astronaut. I note that there is a very short stubbly thing. That it is so short is the issue.

When I place a flagpole in sunlight. It has a shadow in the opposite direction or a relative length to other shadows of similar heighted objects.

The point is where is the flags / flag poles shadow. We have covered this.

Okay. I think far more of history is artificial than is commonly effected. By artificial I don't mean entirely faked, although sometimes I think it is. But it could also be, real, except the reasons for it are fake. So the reasons for nato boycotting might be as simple as to present to the world that there is such an issue. Broadly speaking I think all wars have true reasons that are different to what is presented. I am not saying that the events are not real. I would say that the nuclear issue is a good example of this. I think it is logical that nuclear weapons (I am not saying they don't exist) are very overstated. The reason being that most war games end in nuclear weapons not being used. Thus the purpose is not to use them, so much as to have them. The main impact they have is via fear, or as a deterrent. If this is the case, then I think that it is more logical that governments spend a bit of money maintaining the illusion that they have nuclear weapons. Rather than actually to spend significantly more money maintaining and building a nuclear arsenal, that would never really get used. Ergo I think the nuclear arms race was real. Just to be clear, I am not stating this is the case, but that I think that this is more logical to myself, than the presented narrative. What are your qualifications for talking about international relations by the way?