if nothing else, it makes for interesting reading........

http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

... also if you got a spare twenty minutes and bandwidth to burn, check out, AFUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON on google video

Can you make money writing this ****? 'Cause I can write much, much crazier **** than this if I want to. Serious question.

Ignoring the, uh, nazi saucer technology, I guess the doubt hinges around this:

"Since it was obvious to everyone that standard rocket technology could not get man to the moon and back".

It's not that hard. Once you are in orbit most of the work is done. You slingshot around Earth and the complete lack of any kind of friction means you no more effort whatsoever until you arrive at the moon three days later.

Google Earth (not maps) has some great pictures, including 360 degree panoramas (with no soundstage visible) by the way.

I'd love to debunk every point, but there are so many. If you want doctor you can pick one at a time.

EDIT: Oh my god! I got to page 4 and it's just gone completely bat**** insane. LOL! I can't write stuff this bad.

I like the old "the flag is flying but there is no wind on the moon"
Well guess what, they used a supporting rod and it is clearly seen along the top edge, and then wrinkled the flag a bit to make it look nice.

I've got some wicked conspiracy theories I believe in, but geez the moon landing pretty obviously happened.

Any continuing disbelievers can read all the expert evidence at www.clavius.org/

evlPanda said...

Can anybody possibly explain this one? I mean, wow. Anyone want to take a shot?



How can the astronaut's two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!

I see your lumpy bumpy shadows and raise you the weirdest railway in the world: train tracks that get closer together!!

Anyway, what a boring world it would be if we didn't have deliciously loopy lunatics like Jay Weidner in it

oh but Greenleader you poor fool, apparently it was sent via satellite so even the mission controllers thought it was real... and then they didn't have to have thousands of people "in on it" (the conspiracy)

were they really? I mean seriously think about it.... were they really toffees?
Millions of people were fooled bya fake landing, and you as a six year old could tell a real toffee from one constructed by a clever director in a studio? As a layman (layboy?) no less. You poor deluded fellow

evlPanda said...

Can anybody possibly explain this one? I mean, wow. Anyone want to take a shot?



How can the astronaut's two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!

Ummmm, apart from how that letter 'A' got onto the moon's surface?
I'll try...

the most obvious answer...
- the terrain where the left astronaught is in a hollow, which would mean that the shadow is elongated going down the gradient from where the right astronaught is standing, going by the arm height in relation to the flag...the right astronaught is standing on higher ground.

another option...
- the light isn't from the sun, but from the shuttle...I'm sure they wouldn't fly to the moon in a vehicle that isn't equipped with half-decent spottys! This would also explain the lack of light in the background in other images.

Apart from that...I don't know...I wasn't there...and to add...I don't personally give a ****!

The MythBuster lads have had a go at these ones recently.

www.mythbustersresults.com/episode-104-nasa-moon-landing

If you can't trust a tv show...who can we trust??

Hey you non believers.....IT IS TRUE!!!!![}:)][}:)] I was an actual witness, no not one of those that looked at a T.V. screen. I watched them land from my vantage point at Garry Junction, I saw it live as it happened. with me own eyes....So there,,,. Marked the ground with a big "X", just so i could prove it if needed

Ok Mark, I am game. I am not convinced that a manned shuttle actually landed on the moon. I could bore you all with conspiracy theories, random crazy mumblings of the propaganda machine etc, but it is too early for my creative brain functions.

If man did land on the moon, why was I not convinced of it during my 5 years studying physics at Australia’s top university for astronomy? Or more importantly, why is swiss cheese still expensive, surely they would have brought back a huge supply?

To provide balance, I have seen no evidence that they did not land on the moon, just saying they have failed to produce the evidence to convince me that they did.

^ Ok, so why is it so hard to do? You'd agree there are satellites, right? What's to stop us from going that little bit further to the moon, scientifically speaking?

To repeat sheartip::
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/51023977.html

Buzz obviously believed he was on the moon.

check the video on www.smh.com.au

"
Aldrin leaves man seeing stars
Video has emerged of Buzz Aldrin dealing with a moon conspiracy theorist - the man is left seeing stars. (00:20) "

^that is gold Ian! Although I wonder, if he really went, would he feel the need to resort to violence[}:)]

Cal said...

Mark _australia said...

Not taking the p!ss, but If you read all of the site I posted above (clavius) I fail to see how you could not be convinced. Especially as how equipment left behind can be seen with a telescope apparently (haven't seen it first hand tho')

I'd just be interested know from the disbelievers why they don't believe when the articles from the experts are so convincing?

Mark, I have no difficulty in believing that an unmanned shuttle landed on the moon, it could even have come back bringing rock samples, but a manned shuttle? I think there is reason for doubting. I am not into conspiracy theories (except for the entertainment value) but I do think that politics had a lot to do with the moon landings, and I don’t trust much when associated with politics! Just had a quick look at your posted clavius site, there are as many holes in that as there are in the conspiracy theories or the 'proof' that man landed on the moon. Fact is, we will never know the truth until an independent mission lands on the moon and inspects the sites in a scientific manner. Until then, I will enjoy the conspiracy theories, and the believers trying to disprove them!

I can accept that perhaps hard evidence is getting scarce now that it was 40 years ago, especially considering NASA has now revealed they taped over the orginal copies of the landing....but I also suggest that if you can concieve an unmanned landing, and accept that there is indeed an international space station now and even manned orbits back then, there is little leap to accept a manned moon landing. But yes where hard evidence is a tiny blip in the mountain of circumstantial evidence...there will alyways be doubters.

HOWEVER - one inescapable fact totally debunks the conspiracy theorists. Governments and government departments cannot keep a secret. Despite what people like to think, anyone who has ever worked for any arm of any governent knows that to keep an explosive secret for 5mins let alone 40years is far more unbelievable than man merely walking on the moon....

AND - I can guarantee that if Armstong, Buzz etc were in on a conspiracy (as they would have to be) they would either all be richer than Bill Gates or dead....think about it.

The church manages to keep many 'secrets', surely the US is not about to let itsefl be outdone by such an archaic organisation?

(oh, this could get fun.. )
(Please let it be windy next week!)