That's a word - not an answer. Besides, I know plenty of facts which aren't. Can we be sure you can tell the difference? I have my doubts.

I should add that you really don't help your case by CONSTANTLY injecting every post with tedious terms such as "Moon Truthers" which are solely meant to evoke an [iemotional reaction[/i in the reader and [idraw a line under any further thought[/i.

I mean, it might draw a few cheers from the peanut gallery. But it's a very poor substitute for contributing something of value to the discussion.

So, once again: what PRECISELY would it take for you to first DOUBT and then DENY the Apollo program?

Brian "D:REAM" Cox = faithist
Mugwump, canon accredited photographer = truther

I know which side I'm on.

Well, I think it certainly begs the question - why is the BBC through it's premier spokesperson on issues relating to physics and astronomy (a former employee of the prestigious CERN laboratories), attempting to shore up the Apollo story with a experiment which is completely bogus? I find it impossible to believe that the BBC didn't know that independent experiments have proven that you don't need mirrors placed on the moon to bounce light back to earth. So either Cox isn't half the scientist we are led to believe or he's a willing participant in what can ONLY be described as a CONSPIRACY to mislead the public.

If someone can come up with another explanation I'll gladly listen to it.

The best of the best, the cream of the cream at NASA, taken on and demolished by a Saints fan.
One man versus the combined mind power of the cream of scientific humanity.
And it 's 1-0 to him is it?
I can buy that!
A man who's very basis for assertion is 'my guess would be'.
Fook my pit cap!!!!!!

LISTEN to HIS explanation of IT. Do YOU think HE hasn't ADDRESSED it?

You've managed to find every conspiracy out there but none of the debunks or explanations. Odd that.

Well, that's the really COOL thing about science that everyone seems to have forgotten: authority counts for precisely zero. I mean it's useful as a contextual framework for discussion. But if something is right it really doesn't matter one iota whether the person putting it forward is up against the entire weight of the scientific community. Besides, I'm not arguing anything you couldn't figure out for yourself if you simply stopped accepting everything organisations such as NASA say at face value.

Precisely WHAT makes you so sure they would only ever tell you the truth? There's no basis whatsoever for such blind faith. If I argued that any other government department only ever dealt in facts you'd rightly laugh me off this board. Yet we are supposed to believe the minute anyone at NASA crosses the threshold of JPL or the Johnson Space Centre they are suddenly overwhelmed by an overriding urge to tell the truth? Seriously?

Understand that I am NOT saying there is no space program or even that we haven't gone to the moon. I just don't believe the official NASA line on Apollo. I think there are very good reasons for this many of which I haven't discussed.

Suffice to say that you should ALWAYS be suspicious of any scientific claim which is bolstered less by the evidence than worthless appeals to authority and personal attacks against critics. If the argument is good enough no further input is necessary. Which means the argument likely ISN'T good enough.

[uThe 25 Rules of Disinformation.[/u

Even though I agree that we have seen an increase in the activities of so-called Internet "sock puppets" whose motives are questionable on forums and social media (especially insofar as "hot" topics are concerned) - I think we also have to remember that just about everyone ([umyself included[/u) commits one or more of the below sins without necessarily having some nefarious and hidden reason for doing so.

However, I do think we should hold supposedly "professional" voices in the media, government and academia responsible for their statements.

I mean, I could tick off four or five of these warning signals in practically every news story I hear or read lately. Some are quite funny.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Come to think of it - I WOULD - say that, wouldn't I?





Suffice to say you should have confidence in your ability to figure things out. Most people are a hell of a lot smarter than they think. They just convince themselves that they are inferior.

Conversely Mugwump, some people are not as smart as they think they are, but convince themselves that they are, are overconfident and should accept that there are things that they can't figure out.


Without having to make things up to explain them.

If you are still wondering why anyone might question the validity or credentials of NASA officials I'm going to show you some clips which border upon the positively surreal.

Before I do - how many of you have ever streamed a live NASA press conference? I suspect the answer is - very few to none of you. My guess is you thought similar to me and expected a lot of eggheads talking dry-as-dust science-stuff which whilst probably fascinating isn't likely too entertaining and switched channels to Breaking Bad.

Hence I did a complete double-take when I stumbled across an interesting clip in one of Richard Hall's presentations. Before you follow the link let me set the scene. The year is 2012 and you are watching the conference NASA held to brief journalists following the successful landing of the Mars Curiosity rover.

Now, I don't know how many of you remember but owing to Curiosity's sheer size it was felt that the existing method of delivering probes to Mars (a succession of drogue parachutes slowing the entry vehicle to such a speed whereby the lander could be "dropped" whilst protected inside a series of air-bags which cushioned it on impact and the subsequent bouncing across the Martian surface until it rolled to a stop) just wasn't up to the job. I'm not exactly sure why this is so but it's not really important. NASA had to come up with a new system and after much deliberation they decided on what seemed like an incredibly complex arrangement (Murphy's Law, anyone?) whereby drogue parachutes were again used to slow the craft on orbital insertion but instead of dropping a giant airbag this time they released a fully-fledged flying vehicle with the rover attached beneath. Dubbed the "Skycrane" it immediately deployed a sophisticated sensor array that scanned for an optimal point of delivery whilst feeding real-time data to the onboard-CPU whose task it was to convert all this telemetry into a flight plan which was fed to the propulsion unit. Bear in mind that given the time it takes for a signal to leave Mars, arrive on Earth and then return it was impossible for NASA to exert any control over this critical phase. The Skycrane needed to be fully autonomous and any screw up would likely result in Curiosity being rendered a thin smear of metal spread across a hundred miles of Martian soil. Provided everything went well the Skycrane would arrive at its desired location and hover using its rapidly diminishing reserves of propellant whilst Curiosity was lowered to the surface on a series of tethers. Once successfully on the ground a signal would be sent telling the Skycrane to cut the tethers and then expend its remaining fuel clearing the landing site completely and crashing safely.

Now, I remember thinking at the time something like, [i"That's sure sounds like a horribly complicated solution"[/i but like most people I was bedazzled by NASA's reputation for delivering technical wizardry and thought no more of it. The eggheads would figure it out.

Well, it turns out that the egghead who is among those chiefly responsible for the Skycrane is one Adam Seltzner.

Take a close look at [url=https://youtu.be/x-4cRW_T5Xg?t=1299Seltzner talking to the assembled press about HIS Skycrane.[/url And before any of you complain that I've somehow mixed up NASA with a Monty Python sketch - I haven't.

And don't just concentrate on Seltzner's completely inexplicable behaviour. Listen CAREFULLY to the reaction of the PRESS. Can anyone guess at the nature of what seems like a very big JOKE?

What are we meant to think of stuff like this?

Started watching it , but it soon showed its agenda as being prepared by the mischief makers.
Stopped watching it.
The guy said he didn't know, to what to me looked like a set-up technical question.
Not a normal question.
He should know, in someone's estimation ... hence he's a patsy.
QED
Fooking laughable.

I can accept questions about his depth of knowledge, but to extrapolate it beyond that?
I'd call that guessing.
Mischief makers.

Who gives a flying f*** about the "agenda"? I'm not asking you to agree (or disagree) with it and in any case the "agenda" didn't film the clip - NASA did.

Personally I can take or leave Rich Hall. But given some of the anomalies which have cropped up in the Mars photographs (which should be considered against a [ipattern of anomalies[/i stretching all the way back to NASA's inception) he's hardly committing some crime against humanity by asking what are pretty important questions.

Science seeks to provide explanations for OBSERVED PHENOMENA. Since NASA, which is a publicly funded body, simply refuses to address them you can hardly blame people for speculating.

Science DOES NOT say that because we are TOLD a photograph is taken on Mars what seems like a DEAD RODENT cannot be a dead rodent. Papers with that kind of flawed logic don't even make it to peer review. Or they shouldn't.

And in any case - NONE OF THIS has any bearing on NASA's press conference. Can you explain why the press seemed on the verge of hysterics when they asked Stelzner about the "landing"? Is he a scientist or a comedian?

Give me strength!

Well if NASA filmed it, they must have been happy for it to go out warts and all.
Ain't that honesty?
I am on about the guys in the rooms afterwards making guesses.
They weren't any better than him.
At least he said he didn't know ... perhaps he is in the first stages of dementia, perhaps he bites his nails, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
I'm watching the Superbowl how about you?
My side is losing .... something is not right somewhere.


Perhaps Cam Newton has been nobbled?

I suspect that NASA, along with just about every other public or private body which is engaged in monkey business no longer gives a fig. Whereas people used to invest considerable time and energy covering up certain events better knowledge of human psychology has led conspirators to conclude that such efforts are largely a waste of effort. People will believe whatever they are told to because it's safer to be with the crowd than against it.

If senses and intuition don't agree with the facts as described to them then those senses and intuition (never the facts) must be in error. Never mind that both are the highly refined products of millions of years of evolution and are chiefly responsible for keeping folk safe and well throughout the duration of their lives.

Again, I'm NOT saying we aren't on Mars. Nor am I saying there isn't a Curiosity rover lurching around out there somewhere (although given the ss of the press club you do have to wonder ...). But if this is the guy who is responsible for creating the supposed "Skycrane" system I'd be hurriedly checking the bill of materials before lift-off.

Great. Got that. So, provide a good example which you argue shows a difference in luminosity, and we can talk. I think I can see your beginner's errors already, but in case I misunderstand, i await a specific example.



Great. So, let's look at an Apollo photograph which you think has such significant differences, and is therefore not genuine.



Bear in mind that in order to achieve the above you have to supply CLOSE TO the same amount of light in the opposite direction in order bring the subject within the tonal range of the camera. Which means you either have to set up a portable flash-unit to fill in the shadow areas - or (maybe) use a very efficient reflector (neither of which the astronauts carried). Without it the subject MUST BE reduced to a pitch-black silhouette. [uThere's simply no room for debate on this question. [/u'"

Hoaxers aren't impervious to evidence, they just haven't got the skills to interpret it correctly.
Or misunderstandings like thinking that there always has to be a flame in a rocket propulsion system.
What is certain is that man went to the moon and left his dirty washing.
It's a damn good job he never tidied up.

[iYeah i've seen this particular clip before. The place NASA faked these Mars pictures is Devon island where [url=https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=do+lemmings+live+in+canadaLemmings[/url and [url=https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=do+walrus+live+in+canadaWalrus's[/url happily habitat. Even with this unequivocal evidence it'll be discarded by the close minded even when the pictures are Nasa's own....... Mars voyages[/i



[iAnd that Nasa comedian evading questions like he'd just got off the boat deserves the title as an ijit. Talk about gullible believing Nasa i don't know whats the funniest. The mars missions or that Nasa ijit[/i.

As I previously stated, I'm not wasting any more time developing RSI over the question of Apollo's suspicious lighting. I think I've already flushed away more of my life than this issue deserves.

If anyone really wants to get to the bottom of it - ignore OTHER PEOPLE'S experiments and perform them [uYOURSELF.[/u It's not difficult to download NASA stock photography. Do a bit of research and then try to approximate the lighting conditions and performance of the astronauts.

A single light setup preferably shot outside on a dark night (that way you don't get any fill drawn in from the sky or bounced. Lunar surface reflectivity is equivalent to bitumen - so there's your substrate.

I mean, there are some differences in format (Hasselblad is usually 4 x 3 as opposed to full-frame or cropped APS-C DSRL sensor) and glass - but it's easy enough to compensate with shutter speed and ISO.

It's an interesting little exercise and you'll learn a few things from it. Have fun.

I'm curious to know, in your opinion, whether you think bitumen is or isn't reflective?

But you are not replicating what happens on the moon .... and has been explained there are more than one light sources ... the surface, the Earth, the other astronaut's white suit ...etc
But you won't have it, which makes you look daft.

Why on Earth (pun intended) would anyone want to replicate your one-dimensional experiment?

[url=https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/humanresearch/analogs/research_info_analog-haughton.html#.Vri8BFiLQdUThis place?[/url
I should imagine they do a hell of a lot of filming there ... as part of training.
More filming than on Mars probably.

He is anxious to find "anomalies". And proud of himself that he can spot all these "anomalies" in all these images. Which the fakers missed, or weren't half as clever as him, else they wouldn't have made this catalogue of basic easy-to-spot-by-rank-amateurs mistakes.

He has invested so much in his anomaly spotting being correct that he won't hear of the possibility that his amateur experiments don't disprove the veracity of the Apollo moon images.

Given that we can now actually see totally independent images proving the landers landed and are still in place, the logical thing for him to do if actually interested in the facts, is go back to his experiments and analysis to work out why he got what are clearly false result. Work out what mistakes he made.

But he cannot countenance the thought that it is his experiments/analysis that hold the error, so, in classic Black Knight stylee, will resolutely to stick to the position that he and his experiments and analysis cannot possibly be wrong, so therefore, although NASA did land men on the moon, several times, they still faked all the photos. By accurately recreating vast swathes of the Moon's surface in some studios somewhere. And pretending to take real photos. It's a novel variation, but if it makes him happy, then why not?

[iKeeping their bases covered (Pardon the pun) Are you seriously falling for that.....I shouldn't be surprised.[/i

Wow!
You have figured out what they are up to.
They are covering their bases.
They could of course just have gone to Mars with untried equipment and untried procedures.
And they could have filmed it at a secret location, but foolishly they publicised to the world's population ... a subset of which is inhabited by cynical nutjobs.

They are not really trying to test their equipment in readiness, the idle gits just can't be d to go ... oh and yes they haven't got the technology or brains.

[i Check out this smoking gun. This is from Nasa's very own website. They're definitely declaring and not denying this picture was taken on mars.[/i [url=http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/694114main_Watkins-2-pia16204_full.jpgLemming Anyone[/url [iIf you click the photograph at about the Nine O'clock position you'll see the Lemming between two white Earth Rocks bottom left hand corner. Best thing about this anomaly is that Nasa are not denying its from Mars when its really Devon island. Proven by the Lemming. When they could of said it was taken whilst training.

[/i