Seal

By shuttle I was referring to the Apollos. They were cramped for room. I doubt that the radio link would be able to have an effect to the moon. At least to that kind of accuracy to enable a rocket taking off to be followed. Whilst I agree it is remotely plausible I think a more logical explanation is that they faked the takeoff. Then people pointed out something, then they made an explanation to explain it, particularly when combined with the other glaring oddities in what is frankly a ridiculous video. The insane level of accuracy needed to control that camera manoeuvre is beyond what I think is realistically possible bearing in mind scabbly signals, and the time it takes radio waves to travel plus other factors. I note that the video also shows some zooming out. Which sure is possible. But again, I think it adds to the overall complexity.

Luckily science is based upon the reality of things not on the words used to describe them then. That isn't even kindergarten levels of philosophy . Yes I meant the "velocity" it moves around the earth. And yes I have just been reading about rotational speed. It is interesting thanks. I don't see that it invalidates my actual point though. But if we use a different word for something does that effect the outcome?

Like I said, I took 2,000mph from my head. I can't remember where from. I have just googled, it says 2,288mph. https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/176--How-fast-does-the-Moon-travel-around-Earth-#:~:text=The Moon orbits Earth at,(3%2C683 kilometers per hour). In my post, I said, "admittedly much slower as you head to the poles' so yes I had taken into account. Even allowing for it being at a guess 200 mph in the UK, then I contend it would not work.

I don't see how you can say it is THE explanation. Rather than one of a number. I think it is quite a lacking explanation personally. To debunk you would need to show how it is THE explanation. With regards to the images. Even if it is a composite, you would expect the continents to be the same size if it is based on actual images. Plus the 124km difference couldn't explain it inline with your previous graphic because the images show the opposite i.e the closer image appears significantly smaller than the further one. But surely it would be impressive just to see that one photo? Rather than being served a constant illusion as to what the earth looks like from space? Sure my personal incredulity doesn't make anything true. But not does it make things false. What I think is plausible or isn't, like many people, does though have an impact on what I think. Same as for most people. Sure about the clouds and yes coincidences happen. But it is quite intellectually dishonest to notice a lot of 'coincidences' and to disregard them. I think. If I understood your explanation, you were saying that as we are level It would appear to be in a straight line in that it is horizontal. This explanation was lacking for me. I think you would expect to see it get larger and smaller as it transits the horizontal. You would also expect to see features at a different angle as the it moves across your perspective.

The same results from the lunar refractor experiment were obtainable before we had been to the moon. So to get them, a lunar refractor is not necessarily required. It had been going on since the early 1960's. And personally I find lunar refracting from a small reflector to be quite hard to believe, although I don't disbelieve it. These numbers are from my head so sorry if they are a bit wrong, but I think they are materially right. But the earth spins at the equator by 1000mph, admittedly much slower as you head to the poles. The moon rotates at 2000 mph, and is 240,000 miles away. Light (I think is equivalent to laser speed?) takes about a second to get to the moon from earth. Two seconds needed to get ther and back. In one second the moon would have moved half a mile and the earth a quarter of a mile. I don't think that a laser position by hand decades ago would be able to maintain such an accuracy for decades, bearing in mind slight changes in orbit etc. I appreciate it could be possible engineering and laser accuracy is far more than I can imagine. But I am not convinced. Also bearing in mind that Nasa state they have put objects on the moon in non-manned expeditions, then putting reflectors up there does not necessitate man walking on the moon.

Okay so on the footprints I am referring to the boots in a museum vs the footprints. I appreciate that explanation. However, I consider it an explanation rather than a debunking. The reason being that it provides a possible explanation, rather than an objective solution. Not that I think an explanation isn't a useful response. When you tell a lie, you often find you have to add adornments as time passes. I appreciate lunar overshoes are a possible explanation, but when you consider other issues such as the severe lack of space in the shuttle (which to an extent anyway I find implausible) and the perhaps more logical idea of having minimal footwear options there are other possibilities also. That is one photo. There are others that show different. It is entirely possible that some photos were mocked up with tyre tracks whereas in others it was neglected. There would still be evidence of disturbance. Plenty of photos do not show this. Regarding the perspective and the continents. Refer to image 6 in the slide. This is taken from 700km away. It shows a small united states. Then take the blue marble image, slide 4. This was taken 824km away and shows a huge United States. Whilst the explanation is valid scientifically. It does not correlate to the photos, so I don't consider it to have debunked the issue. https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/world/gallery/earth-photos/index.html Like you say Nasa does claim to use composites rather than photos. We are able to photo the moon so it shouldn't be too hard to photo the earth. The issue with the composites is matters such as why the same cloud formations appear in multiple. Why are some clouds composited to read the word sex. I don't think it is plausible that the camera's could be controlled with that accuracy from houston. I doubt such a video was important enough to warrant such a technological innovation. If a lunar module taking off from the moon looked plausible, I would expect: not sparks that look like a few primary colours; Some kind of expulsion; be it a bit of fire or smoke; some dust from the lunar surface; and a more natural streamlined trajectory. Not the surreal rocket that does really give off vibes of being puppet stringed up. R.e the telephone call. If they were radiowaves, did no other radio's pick it up surely every amateur radio enthusiast would have been trying to do this (I don't know whether they did or not)? Furthermore I don't think the phone call shows a five or six second delay in the conversation. Sure it might have been edited. It would appear it is circling because that is the trajectory it takes. Taking into the account of the position of the earth in the shot, I think that could expect to be seen. Especially if you look at the surface and how the perspective never changes from the visible details. Sorry, I do appreciate the spirit in which you have commented and haven't taken them aggressively. I hope that you take mine in the same manner. I appreciate the offer of answering questions also.

I am surprised. I don't consider the source to be reputable. I don't necessarily find the arguments that a lot of people were involved therefore there would be lots of whistleblowers to be convincing. Firstly the process of compartmentalisation has been used plenty of times in secret projects so that the people involved have no idea what is going on holistically. Secondly, particularly with the moon landing if there were 400,000 involved, it may well be that 399,990 think that we have been to the moon. I think there was a channel 4 reality show once which basically showed how easy it was to trick people into thinking they went to the moon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Cadets_(TV_series) I know someone who works for nasa. He makes satellite technology to go in high altitude balloons. I do think it would take a sample of vastly more than 400,000 until you found someone whose name backwards was gnortsMr Alien to be selected to go to the moon ;). What are the chances eh?

Okay, I will do so. Although I may not buy the items that it links to books unless I can find free pdfs on the internet. Unless you can recommend any of the books as being particularly worth reading? Give me some time to do so. I have read the entry. I don't think it really says a lot. Plus about ten years ago I was South Africa's all time third highest goal scorer for a few years, according to wikipedia.

I mean my suspicions are based in questioning the integrity of nasa lying about going to the moon. I have no doubts that they also lie about their headcount if it supported an initial lie. I find 400,000 to be quite surprisingly large personally. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8226075.stm If they would lie about moon rocks, perhaps we shouldn't take their word at face value?

1) could have all been done very easily by not many. Secrets exist. D-day, the Manhattan Project. Compartmentalisation is a thing. 2) Yes, I would include all those in the cold war. I suspect the cold was was not as presented. Nor is any war, I feel. 3) I disagree. We are talking about experts so expert that they lost the technology to go to the moon, and most of the footage also.

Hi so I might have made a mistake. I am not mega new to this site, although not entirely fresh. I thought this thread was perhaps a place to discuss views about conspiracy theories, as they are known. I am of course happy to discuss those kind of things but it gets a bit tiring if the responses are a little passive aggressiv,e its a bit exasperating for me. I also get the impression I am exasperating people, and have perhaps got the wrong point of this thread (it ain't my sandpit) its cool I'll drop it. I have zero desire to exasperate people. Apologies. But if anyone does wanna chat about this view of mine or others, thats cool too. I enjoy a good discussion about interesting stuff particularly with people of differing views. peace

I have never been there, I don't know what it is. Whatever it is I can see so I guess it is real to that extent, although ultimately all my senses including sight are prepared by my brain so I can never trust them 100%

It is a good question. I would say that I suspect fundamentally this reality is deceptive. From history, through to many things presented in the media (I would include 9/11 in that but am only mentioning this because you have). How do you know it is all nonsense? Sure it may be, but that is a pretty big claim to make?

I will assume you meant a conspiracy scientist

many of the debunkings have been debunked as well

Were there thousands of people involved? Take for instance the control room. They didn't actually see anyone go to the moon, they just heard a blip on a screen. They may well have believed they did go to the moon. Thousands of people being involved is only necessary if there was actually a space programme. If there wasn't then there would have been less than thousands. Try watching the press conference after the apollo missions. It looks very much like people who know that they are lying and are very depressed about having to do so. I disagree that the USSR and USA were rivals. But I imagine that our conceptions of what reality is differ greatly. Broadly speaking, I suspect nations states are middle management. I suspect you suspect that nations compete within a nation state system under rules of international politics. Both views are cool imo and would make an interesting discussion, except I am also happy to accept your views as entirely reasonable on this and think its best to just accept we have a differing view on 'international politics'. I do suspect all wars are rackets, like smedley butlers book, and that the cold war was no different. Nasa does retouch stuff yes, it refers to its images as images rather than photos because that is what they are. One of my favourite retouches is how they have 'retouched' their image of pluto to show pluto the dog on its face. Sure original photos are copied and reprinted. However all photos I am referring to can be found on Nasa's official website and are official photos. Which experts say there are no discrepancies? Are all people that call themselves experts actually experts? There are certainly plenty of people who call them selves experts who say that there are discrepancies. You are the most qualified person out there to use your eyes and think. It is pretty clear to the naked eye that that take off is very unlike regular take offs. With regards to your point 4. Yes you are correct. But it is not proof that it isn't and is evidence of manipulation however low level it may be. And when taken with other evidence of Nasa lying through the ages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8226075.stm) and much much more, then it indicates to me that not trusting them is a reasonable position to make. I don't trust any publicity.

lol. one what?

Isn't the trouble with the moon photographs a lot more than just there being no stars. It also includes images of celestial bodies that have been stuck on in photoshop, that can be identified by just changing the brightness levels. Photographs of the astronauts footprints being different to the actual footprints that exist in museums for the astronauts. Moon rovers in the middle of landscapes with no tyre tracks leading to them although with footprints around. What about the inconsistencies between the official photos of the earth from space from nasa, where the continent of africa varies in size spectacularly. Or the consistencies where the same cloud patterns can be seen in a number of different places on the earth. The evidence of fakery is huge, and not limited to the stars / lack of stars. It would make sense that the stars would need to be hidden, as if their patterns varied from what they should, then that would make them quite objectively fake. Although to be sure this is not proof either way. And also to be clear, because 1970's cameras don't suffer long enough exposure, doesn't mean that anyone went to the moon. Also - did 1970's cameras have a motion trackers that would have enable such as video as the below, without having to leave someone behind on the moon? Or was someone left behind? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6a0Wrrh1g&t=226s (watch the take off here, and tell me that that is like any rocket taking off you have ever seen in your life. Plus the lansdcape looks exactly like a film set, rather than real life). Did 1960's phone technology allow a phone call to and from the moon? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs - do you think the moons transit looks real in this official image? If so - why does it transit in a straight vector, rather than circling the earth?

hmm there must be some kind of crime wave. The other week my mates dogs bum got sniffed by rishi sunaks dog.

What is also amazing is how peaceful and quiet life is without a mobile phone.

It is probably not everyone's cuppa tea. But. If you like your trance uplifting euphoric, a bass that ripples under skin. Synths that might as well be heroin. Play this loud.

I do wonder whether this might be a possible reason for players never playing as well for England. Foden was the one I was thinking of watching at the weekend. Never feel he is as good for England as at City. But then you could go back through others, Lampard, Gerrard etc, John Barnes? I think there are loads.

my daughter literally shouted - here we go! whilst watching an episode of bluey as I read that.

Maybe. I don't necessarily thing AI would be as impartial as believed. I don't think it is actually intelligence in the same way intelligence is intelligence and still is programmed by those who want to benefit from it. I also think that what AI is used in some places is a bit beyond what is seen in chat GPT. Not that I have used chat GPT personally. I do agree about Man Utd - same as liverpool in the 90's. Should be sitting in the relegation zone all decisions being proper.