Seal

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

So the link to pages of pages of evidence from independent scientists, pace agencies, amateur scientists, colleges etc didn’t count?

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

15 hours ago, blandy said:

Here's a thing. And it's a thing about your thinking that I don't really understand.

It goes like this. Once upon a time, we all lived in caves and, well, since those days, things have moved on a bit. We're now in a world where there's, as you mention satellite images. There's satellite TV, Satellite Communications, GPS/GNSS. All these space programme things - you don't seem to doubt these exist, nor the space Shuttle, nor the international space station.

So the thing I don't get is believing the conspiracy theories about there being no moon landings. You'll happily accept that a signal from earth can be directed at a relatively small object in space and then that satellite re-transmit the signal it receives down to earth. GPS satellites, for example are not geo-stationary - they are orbiting earth far more rapidly than the moon is, yet, you have a problem believing reflectors on the moon could be beamed at, because the moon is going so fast, in (your understanding).

You take an interest in space travel and stuff, and must be aware of the advances that have allowed astronauts to dock to the ISS and astronauts to space walk. So what is it that leads you to believe that "well, yes, we can dock a spacecraft to an orbiting space station, but we haven't managed to land one on the moon. And astronauts (obviously) have returned to earth from the space station.

I basically don't get how you are seemingly happy to accept the technology and capability exists and is used for all these things, but that it isn't (to you) credible that basically the same types of technology and travel are not credible  insofar as the moon is concerned.

People have provided all kinds of evidence and information regarding the moon landings, and surely critical thinking runs along the lines of "I know there are space station, Space shuttle Apollo rockets, astronauts, docking in space, space suits worn in outer space, the ability to hit a fast traveling tiny satellite with a RF beam from earth... that stuff is what 80, 90 % of the way to landing on the moon... There's independent evidence of moon landings....and then on the other hand there are a bunch of debunked theories and conspiracies, none written or proposed by anyone of any credible background or credentials...I know, I'll believe the non-credible ones over the weigth of evidence I know to be real, plus other evidence from the same "authority" that I know has put satellites up there and space shuttles and Apollos...

Still, each to their own

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..."

7 minutes ago, bielesibub said:

How about you do a bit of searching, I asked chat-gpt "how would you prove a rock is from the moon?", I got this reply: (but I'm sure this won't be sufficient for you) 

Anyone else feel that there is a wind up going on here? As entertaining as reading all this has been, it feel almost like the sane ones here are arguing against a really badly trained conspiracy-biased-LLM.

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. 

8 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Nobody is saying it's proof that it happened. But it's an explanation of HOW it happens. 

You say shadows should be parallel, we show you photos and diagrams that show you how shadows aren't parallel.

You say they can't distinguish the laser photons from other photons, we show you how they do do that.

You say the footprints don't match the boots, we show you how they do match the boots.

 

None of that is proof that the moon landings happened. But it IS proof that the reasons you are saying they DIDN'T happen are not true.
We're not providing proof, we are showing that your proof for the opposite is not true.

You haven't provided any evidence for the moon landings not happening that hasn't been easily debunked. Literally none

 

Yes. They did.

As @LondonLax has shown above, there is a lot of independent evidence that corroborates the moon landings.

Here, a picture taken by the Indian lunar orbiter of the Apollo 11 landing site

There's plenty more on the link

 

What evidence have you provided that proves they didn't happen that hasn't been debunked?

Nothing.

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.

8 hours ago, blandy said:

When I was an apprentice in the air force one of the astronauts came and gave a talk to us all about it. When I was in Switzerland I saw on of the Apollo capsules that they used to return to earth. It was in a science museum in Bern, loaned I think from an American museum.  Both the Astronaut and the space capsule were convincing and credible to me.

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. 

8 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Here you go. Fill your boots. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

 

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.

9 hours ago, sidcow said:

That's bollocks mate. You're spouting on about critical thinking. Motivation to do something hugely elaborate that costs billions and billions has to form part of your questioning. 

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.

9 hours ago, tomav84 said:

but there have been various scientists etc that haven't made the claim, that are not employed by NASA and are not in any way affected by whether we went there or not. there's an entire page on the royal museums greenwich that debunks the theories. why would they care if the moon landings were faked or not? they don't...they're not the ones claiming we landed on the moon...they're just providing the information to debunk the theories

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. 

9 hours ago, tomav84 said:

surely the 'why' is a big factor in whether you believe a theory though? like if there was any real belief that it was faked, that russia would be shouting it from the rooftops that they did not in fact lose the space race

they didn't though, they conceded defeat, because they did indeed lose

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.

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

what such evidence would suffice out of interest? as someone else has said, it's like you would need to be physically taken there yourself to believe it

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.

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

I disagree, I think "why?" is a huge question and actually the most interesting question

I've got no interest in the science side of the conspiracy or the how but have a huge interest in the history side of the conspiracy

same with the likes of JFK, how the cia and mafia teamed up to kill him isn't as interesting as why they did it

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.

10 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

After my explanation and Blandy‘S excellent analogy, I’m not sure how you could not understand it unless you were doing it on purpose to be honest

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?

12 hours ago, blandy said:

I don't think you fully understand my analogy (that might be my fault, I'm not blaming you) - I (tried to) cover the question of reflected light (and even direct light) from sources that aren't the reflector. This was the part where I said there are other folks chucking all different coloured tennis balls (some green, like "ours". Some are throwing the balls at the wall and they're bouncing off the wall at various angles, a few might hit the bin. Some are throwing the balls away from the wall, and some might go in the bin. Most will be different colours to our green ones. Some will be the same. Sunlight isn't a similar frequency to the laser, it's white light - all the frequencies, not just one spot frequency. So most of it is "other coloured balls" that we can spot and eliminate as "false returns". But yeah some of it will be at exactly the same frequency as our 532nm wavelength light (if that's the wavelength you want to cite). So that's where the bit I wrote about noise floor comes in. The bit about doing the bin test, but not throwing any balls yourself - the amount you collect when not throwing yourself - that's the background light. But when you know how many balls that is, and then you start throwing your own, the bigger number that then appear in the bin - the difference between the two numbers - that's how many of  "your"  balls bounced back to the bin. Further, because you have the bin lid/gate that's only open when you're expecting your own balls back, a lot of reflected light from other objects or places or angles will never get into the bin as it will take a different length of time to get to the bin than for a direct line between the ground laser and the moon reflector and back. 532 and 500 nm are different wavelengths and they can be discriminated apart.

The moon is aglow with light from the sun, reflected down to earth, to our eyes and instruments - that sunlight has travelled from the sun to the moon and then on to us. That light is across the spectrum - not just visible light by the way, but also IR and UV light. While our gate is open and given we've got a filter that only accepts light ina narrow band, most of it doesn't trouble the detector. What we're looking for is an increase in detected light at 532nm at the time (+2.4 secs) we send out each laser pulse. As each received photon can be detected, and as we can plot the time each one arrived we can discern laser returns from background noise.

The pointing stuff and angular velocity we already covered a couple of days ago. It's really (in engineering and science terms) quite a simple principle and implementation. I've done it myself (or been the engineer responsible for systems that do the same thing, in my actual job). We had an aircraft (without a human on board) the aircraft had a navigation system on it (GPS etc), so it had it's known position. It sent that positional data down to the ground station over a radio link(s). The ground location had been surveyed so that we had an absolutely precise defined location. At that location we had directional motor steered antennas. The ground received the aircraft position, a computer calculated the reverse vector to the aircraft and output a signal to a rotor controller. The rotator controller drove a motor to steer the antenna to point at the aircraft, so as the aircraft flew about the antenna constantly tracked the aircraft position. The rate of change of angle for the aircraft from the ground station was far greater than the rate of change of angle of the moon from a point on earth.

OK, so we were using radio signals not laser signals, but exactly the same would have applied if we were using lasers to pass the data to and from the aircraft. Of course the receivers on the ground would get RF noise from all kinds of other nearby RF sources, but you know what - you can tune kit to ignore other frequencies - same principle as the laser we're talking about. It's like you can tune your TV to BBC 1 and it doesn't show you BBC2 when you do, or a mix of stuff from all the different channels - even humans can do it with our eyes - we can tell a green traffic light from a red traffic light or an orange one (unless you drive a Vauxhall Nova, in a baseball hat with very loud music blaring out, that somehow renders people colour-blind to traffic lights).

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.

12 hours ago, sidcow said:

I'll ask you again.  Why would they fake it? For what purpose?

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

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Right, so here's a bit more information.

I'm pleased you have taken the view that there are reflectors on the moon. That vehicles from earth have traveled to the moon and put reflectors on the moon, even if you're very sceptical there were humans in the vehicles.

So on the laser reflectors, again, lets do an analogy. Imagine you've got a wall 20 feet in front of you, and you've got a dustbin with a lid and a stopwatch. You've also got a bunch of green tennis balls which you're going to throw at the wall and hope to land in the bin when they bounce back. So after a bit of practice and honing your throwing technique, you get reasonably good at throwing the balls at the wall. Good. Now to make the experiment harder.

So the next bit is that there are going to be other people with tennis balls stood at various angles and distances in front of you - some also,  like you, in front of the wall, but at different distances, some at the side of the wall. Some of these people are going to be throwing balls in the general direction of you and the bin, others will be throwing the balls at the wall from their positions. That's gonna lead to more balls in the bin - so how can you tell which ones are yours and which are not? Well for a start, people using yellow balls, or red ones, or white ones, or blue ones = you know they can be eliminated from your count of how many did I manage to get in the bin. That's the reason lasers use one particular frequency of photon - other frequency photons received can be ignored.

But still, there's more balls in the bin, and you're trying to get only your green balls in there.

You notice that every time you throw a ball at the wall and it comes back to the bin, that takes 2 seconds. So what you do next is you have the lid on the bin - the people all around you throwing the balls  - none of them are going in your bin, now. But neither are you getting any in. So what you do, is throw your ball, wait 1.9 seconds, lift the bin lid and then put it back on again after 2.1 seconds. The bin lid (gate) has prevented lots of spurious balls from getting in. But it was still open a little while, so some other balls still got in. Some of them were yellow and red and blue so they can be discounted, but still some of the others have green balls that they're throwing. Most don't go in your bin, but some do. Say there were 10 green ones in there after the hour. How many were yours? We don't know. We need to do something else to find out. We do know that because of lots of practice your level of accuracy  has remained much the same each time you throw.

The something else we can do is run the test again. multiple times, but this time. you don't throw any balls at all. Just lift the lid for 0,2 seconds every 2 seconds, as if you were throwing.

After each hour long test, count the number of green balls in the bin. If it's always around 10, then sadly it looks like on average none of your own balls in a test are actually getting back to the bin. So high levels of uncertainty, but it's hard to bounce the balls back accurately - sometimes the wind makes it even harder, sometimes it rains, sometimes there's so many other throwers the balls collide and the whole thing's a mess. So refine the test some more. Only do it on still, dry days when there's not so many other throwers around.

OK, so now we see that on those "good weather days" when you don't throw yourself you get an average of (say) 7 green balls in the bin, and when you do throw an average of 10 every hour. You next improve your technique and manage to get it up to 11 per hour. The average when you don't throw is 7. sometimes it is 9, sometimes 6, sometimes 5... On perfect days though it's generally 6 or 7 without you and 11 or 12 with you.

You can then conclude that "your green balls" are therefore 4 or 5 of the ones in the bin after each hour. The other 7 or so are "noise" in the exact same tennis ball colour as your own. All the blue and red balls are "noise" that is out of band for your balls. The level of 7 green ones is the "noise floor". If you plot a graph of multiple experiment results over time and have the number of balls of each colour, the exact time they arrived (when the lid was open) you can pick yours out with a high degree of tennis ball accuracy. Yours always take 2 seconds, an assistant with a stop watch counts the green ones coming in and stops the timer every time one does. Those coming in at 2 seconds are very very likely yours. When it happens over and over, it becomes a verifiable repeatable experiment and you can report that when you fire you laser balls at the moon wall, you don't get many laser balls back in the bin, but you can identify the ones caught in the bin from background noise. Because your mate with the stop watch knows when they arrived, and how fast you throw (20.02 feet per second) and how far away the wall looks (about 20 feet, we thought), he can then do sums and calculate the exact distance to the wall.

 

 

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? 

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I never said that

No but it proves there's a reflector up there. And the apollo missions were very clear that they were putting one there. So Occam's razor again and all that

I've literally posted a detailed diagram and explanation showing you how the laser photons can be detected from the noise of the other photons. It's so visual and simple. How are you just dismissing it?

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.

9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

This is just getting funny now.

Did the flashing yellow arrows pointing to the shadow not help? I don't know what else I can give you? You can't see a shadow in a specific picture; I've provided a close up of said picture with big flashing arrows pointing towards the shadow that is clearly visible. What else can I do?

 

The flag does move. It's just been put into the ground so it sways back and forth slightly. you can see it in the video I've posted. There's no atmosphere/air on the moon so nothing to slow that momentum down so it sways for quite a while. Once it stops though, it stops.

There is a huge amount of footage that shows the flag absolutely still for long periods of time. Again 5 minutes on google will reveal this for you.

Come on mate. You can't be serious. You cant see the bends in the first photo because you're looking at it from the wrong angle. 

You can even see the crease going down the flag from where it is bent, which is what you see from the other angle.

Come on, this isn't difficult.

Yes they do. You can see all the photos from the first picture in the second picture. I don't really know what you're not seeing

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.

18 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I posted a pretty lengthy post addressing how the distinguish the photons here

 

It doesn't need to remove your incredulity. All I'm saying is incredulity doesn't mean it isn't true. Just because you don't think something is possible doesn't mean that it didn't happen

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.

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Its' not short. It's incredibly long. That's the problem. The only shadow visible is the shadow of the pole which is very thin and so hard to pick out.

Here is a close up that shows the shadow of the pole (look at those overshoes by the way. Definitely not the boots shown in the spacesuit picture...)

 

 

And Look:

 

Here's your photo. Look at Buzz Aldrin's shadow. You can only see the legs of his shadow. The amount of his shadow you can see doesn't even reach his groin.

Here's the same moment from a different angle

 

Look at the shadow of the actual flag. It's in line with Buzz's torso, well above where the original photos frame stops, hence why you can't see it on the original photo you posted.

 

There's video of this moment too that shows it all happening

 

 

Again the annoying thing about this is a 30 second google search presents you with this information. It's not difficult

 

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. 

42 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Again, personal incredulity is all this is.

We've already covered this (again). There is a huge chance that any photon you shoot at the moon will get detected when it comes back to earth. You only have a one in 250million chance of detecting it.

Luckily, each pulse of the laser they use contains 3x10 to the 17th power of photons. That is a monumentally huge number. So even with the small odds, you do get a small number back with each pulse.

Edit: sorry i see @blandy has already addressed your incredulity above

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

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The annoying thing is literally 5 minutes on google will debunk any of these myths. It's not difficult to do one tiny bit of research on any of them and realise they are false.

You're just believing what you want to believe.

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.

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

It's to the right of the flag, you just can't see it properly because the ground is very uneven.

What's your explanation if you insist it isn't there? It's a magical flag that doesn't have a shadow?

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.

2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yet you don't recognise simple perspective that occurs on earth literally everywhere you look. Examples already posted, yet you're ignoring them completely.

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. 

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It's not the shadow of the flag. It's the shadow of something off frame to the left. We've covered this.

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

Just now, Mandy Lifeboats said:

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.  

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?