This is a flawed argument on many levels. I mean, I've never really bothered investigating Apollo and compared with others who have invested years I'm a total novice.

The questions I have asked are very simple. If Apollo is everything NASA claims the answers should also be simple.

Like I often say in the Unmediated History thread. The only people who believe in this stuff either a) haven't researched it or b) are somehow invested (or both).

And before anyone replies with some psychobabble about "finding what you want to" - remember, I was as ardent a supporter of the Apollo program as anyone for over forty years. Anyone who knows anything about my hobbies and interests will testify that I really [uDID NOT[/u want to arrive at this conclusion. I was once LIKE YOU.

But as I said earlier, whether it's a truth or a lie, life goes on.

While i could understand such a massive hoax being pulled in the 60s/70s , i believe other countries would now be able to provide evidence to prove it, you might suggest they could be bought off, but i would imagine Mr Putin would reish the chance to embarass the US

There is 1 major issue which could support the claims of those that dont believe, and that is that in 40 years with massive increases in technology nobody has sent a human being outside a low earth orbit as far as I know

It wasn't aimed at you, just a general observation.

Why is it flawed? Show me where the flaws are. Show me a conspiracy theorist that isn't any longer. Show me a conspiracy theorist that has accepted evidence that goes against their own ideas. I've never come across any. There may be some somewhere, I'd be interested to see them if they exist.

Aww, feeling inadequate again, Mugs? there, there, don't take on so!




Fsck me, now you think you're Rumpole!



Short answer: It depends.

Longer answer:

1. I don't see the direct relevance.
2. You won't explain the relevance of your "point" (or indeed what your point actually is) so how can anyone sensibly consider whatever it is you are getting at?
3. It isn't a "yes or no" question. You don't get to set a multiple choice of 2 one-word answers! What next, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"


Well, you [ithink[/i you do, and if so, good for you! My congratulations! I'd just like to know, how big is your studio (length minimum 93 million miles? Must be expensive to rent) and how do you recreate a G-type main-sequence yellow dwarf star for your re-creation?

If you can't do that, then you would have to set out how you recreate these basic parameters in some other way, in order to arrive at your proof. What is your proof? I'd be fascinated.

I know that your question, such as it presently is, is of no apparent direct relevance to what we are discussing, so unless you can re-frame it in a way where we can see your point and any relevance, you seem to be wasting your time.

I think you've watched too many old TV courtroom dramas and genuinely see yourself like Rumpole or Perry Mason, with a killer question. When what you need is a less banal scriptwriter.

While the "single" (sic) light source you probably refer to (the Sun) was naturally there, any items on the surface were illuminated by more than one light source; the Sun's light was reflected back from the regolith; the Earth was in the sky and acting as another light source (earthshine, much like moonshine on earth, but more variable, and from a bigger object); and the camera had an integral FLASH; which when used would also scatter off the regolith, astronauts' clothing, lander etc. as the individual image's case may be.

As it is, you're trying to infer that you have some sort of killer point, based on your self-proclaimed immense knowledge of the inverse square law and photographic exposures, but your tactic of "[iLook, I KNOW what the issue is here, and it is OBVIOUS, and so I DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO MAKE MY POINT, I can just ask obligue rhetorical questions and this will suffice[/i" is cringeworthy.

But at least you are learning stuff. I've taught you that there is no air on the Moon, and that the Sun is actually not a small light source, so I am furthering your scientific education. I don't expect gratitude.

There are only two possible explanations here ...... you are either perfectly normal or you are a pompous prat.
And since nobody is perfect, what does that make you?








I am getting the hang of this ......

But of course there are other possible explanations. I [imight[/i be a "holograph". Or what you think you read might just be being planted there by NASA and their flat-planet-wide array of transmitters. Or then again, maybe a reptilian shapeshifter from the Alpha quadrant or wherever it is they live (I forget). You should keep a more open mind.

[iSince you brought up Google. Have you ever seen a Google Maps or Google Earth planes and vehicles cruising around taking pictures for their "street view". Well, if we were to believe that satellite imaging is as accurate as always displayed, satellites should be quite capable of capturing images of buildings down to the tyre marks on the pavement, and easily creating a street based view. So then that leads to the question... why do they need to take pictures with a vehicle if satellites do exist and are capable of what we have always been told they are. Other than what we can actually see and experience with our own senses, nothing can be counted as true, especially when coming from Government [/iwho we have seen lie to us and deceive us over and over again. So why do Google use Planes and vehicles to photograph the Earth.



[iWho needs Satellites then. Google obviously don't to supply Google Earth/Maps. It'd be much easier if Satellites were really up there surely.. [/i[i Simples,....I await more ad hominem and a plagiarised Diarrhea reply

[/i

Gotcha by the Googles!!!
Get outa that!!

The Google branding on that plane is a terrible Photoshop job.

Proper funny.

Trust me I know about these things ....
The Google decals are only there to hide the NASA logos ..... barstards!

Surely they'd be Freemason symbols?

But I keep giving you the means to actually see and experience hundreds of satellites passing over your head, and yet you constantly ignore the fact that you =#FF0000CAN see them =#FF0000WITH YOUR OWN EYES on any clear night - if you choose to do so.

I have asked you many times to explain how this can be so, if the satellites did not exist, and you always completely ignore this rather large elephant in your room. Are you afraid to contemplate the answer? Occam wouldn't be.

But as I'm a helpful kind of guy, here are just some of the ones visible in the general Leeds night sky this early evening. Any time you want to explain how come you can see them, if they don't exist, please, do feel free!

[iHere is a typical mast. With regards to Sky TV being analogue transmitted here is the proof that nails FA's diarrhea.[/i

[iAs you can see Analogue signals are not obsolete. Your freeview box or Sky box transforms the analogue signal to Digital. Now i'm not saying Sky and Freeview carry the same analogue band. They both receive different frequency bands. Here is another piece of evidence Satellite signals are [/i[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogue_television_in_the_United_KingdomAnalogue[/url.
[i[uSatellites don't exist. Now you show me true authentic photo evidence of your satellite.[/uI await more CGI Ad Hominem verbal Diarrhea.[/i

So, Stan, what are these then?_

??

Is that it. :

Thats not photographic. Thats just a friggin list. How pathetically embarrassing

[i[uSign of a loser rearranging my posts.[/u[/i[i Satellites are now in the coffin [/i

Your poor response is what is "pathetically embarrassing". You continue to make an utter fool of yourself.

You claim to want to see satellites for yourself, if they exist.

There is NO image ANYONE could EVER provide to you, which you would EVER accept, unless it fitted your bizarre beliefs. But the direct evidence of your own eyes would, if you are sane, and not a troll, be all you needed.

So, you could see loads of satellites, if you only wanted to. I have merely provided you with the tools. But I already knew you dare not use them, for fear of having to swallow your pride and admit your error to yourself.
Everyone knew you would bluster and swerve the issue. You really are a laughing stock.

That's your problem, but there's the list, you need only look up into the sky. Couldn't make it any easier for you.

[iI've just proven how Sky TV works with authentic evidence. How can i be the fool. If you disagree please provide me a authentic Satellite in working order.. like i did. Goodluck.[/i..

No you didn't.

I doubt you have ever actually proved anything of a scientific nature in your life.
You might have proved bread ....

I think he's right. I'm looking out of my window now and I can't see a satellite.

Proof.

Suck it b|tches.

hahaha bet you can't