A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

[Gifter]

I am struggling to get anywhere near the footage in question, 6 minutes into that video and its laughably bad.

Proof against USA landing on the moon? How about using their satellite to track the mission? How about using their Space efforts to view the face of the moon? Corroborate what the Americans did?

they had loads of potential to debunk the story, they didnt, my guess is they simply couldnt and its not because "It was the 60s and impossible"

Im walking away from this though, its ridiculous and I regret getting involved in the first place

Dude, if you want to see the bit with the fake crescent and filming from the back of the cabin it at from 35mins onwards, though I suspect from your tone you already made you mind up as to what you are going to see.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

What I will see will no doubt have several possible explanations, not all of them "They faked the whole thing"

There is a saying my boss uses quite a lot, "Dont ever argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

Is suspect something similar could apply to the conspiracy theorist.

 

[braineclipse]

Sorry, but you are skitting all over the place, so you jump from showing a rectangular window as proof that a completely different shot is not staged, to then saying the argument is that they could only take the shot from the back of the craft, hence ANY shot near a window validates your argument, when clearly the shot is from a different time (which could have been an unmanned mission or any host of reasons and not one relevant to the original point at all), it means your point is mute, whether you accept that or not.

Find me a cogent counter to the first point = that you can see them staging something from the back of the craft. Otherwise you are conceding the point not vise-versa. Though that does feel a bit idiotic (of me) to say anyway, when we are talking about theories on both sides, this is not some scientific debate where there are a small host of controlled variables.

From my post on the first page of this thread: "I'm sure they filmed from different angles and locations within the spacecraft. In one shot they explain that the camera is up against the window as they were at that time, in another shot they are at the back. I see no mystery here, I'm not surprised that they filmed from different locations to try to get different shots."

You have also failed to address the issue of the size of the earth from low earth orbit. This was brought up in the thread I linked to. There the conspiracy theorists ended up arguing that it wasn't actually the entire earth in the shot, just a small part of it visible through the now infamous round window. When then someone brought up weather patterns from that day and matched them to the clouds seen on the earth in the shots I didn't feel like going any further.

If you don't think arguments about evidence can or should reach a conclusion and you think the point of an argument is to just list points and then continue to disagree then (unsurprisingly) we have different fundamental positions and there is no real basis for discussion.

 

[ArcspacE]

I am struggling to get anywhere near the footage in question, 6 minutes into that video and its laughably bad.

I was referring to NASA's footage (the one which gave rise to all these conspiracies) - not Gifter's youtube link

 

[Gifter]

From my post on the first page of this thread: "I'm sure they filmed from different angles and locations within the spacecraft. In one shot they explain that the camera is up against the window as they were at that time, in another shot they are at the back. I see no mystery here, I'm not surprised that they filmed from different locations to try to get different shots."

You have also failed to address the issue of the size of the earth from low earth orbit. This was brought up in the thread I linked to. There the conspiracy theorists ended up arguing that it wasn't actually the entire earth in the shot, just a small part of it visible through the now infamous round window. When then someone brought up weather patterns from that day and matched them to the clouds seen on the earth in the shots I didn't feel like going any further.

If you don't think arguments about evidence can or should reach a conclusion and you think the point of an argument is to just list points and then continue to disagree then (unsurprisingly) we have different fundamental positions and there is no real basis for discussion.

Jeez, it was NOT atomically dated (the secondary footage you posted) and could have been taken at any OTHER time. You make a cursory search and found something which fits your preconception, they said it was up against the window IN THE SAME SHOT which then shows in fact that they were at the back of the cabin, it shows staging (which is what the guy presents to the atronaughts in the second video). The weather patterns were from where? NASA? if they were staging something would they not match these two off?

Well, if you trawl the net you find people who have taken ALOT of time to research this, in both camps, the reason I said about theories, rather than fact, is that you started making claims of indisputable facts as if this somehow strengthens an argument (this is an NLP technique to debate). I don't think, in this case, that it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, on either side, no.

 

[Gifter]

What I will see will no doubt have several possible explanations, not all of them "They faked the whole thing"

There is a saying my boss uses quite a lot, "Dont ever argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

I suspect something similar could apply to the conspiracy theorist.

Poor form.

 

[THFC]

How many people did NASA use to control their unmanned crafts to the moon? I'm guessing there was a sizeable crew? Wouldn't you need that crew somewhere hidden away and in on it to control this unmanned craft? Or did they just have another mission with an unmanned craft by coincidence at a different department at NASA?

You wouldn't need a seperate crew to control it, they were communicating directly

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Not at all. Unless you read intent that isnt there. If I wanted to offend I would certainly have done a better job, it wasnt my intention at all.

You are, for want of a better term, a conspiracy nut. If I allow myself to get dragged into that sort of debate it will inevitably be on your terms given your experience with this subject.

I have no intention of wasting my time doing such, that is all.

Funny that someone who talks of being open minded and looking for pure truth etc deals in preconceptions as much as the next guy...

 

[THFC]

almost sound offended at the thought that it might be faked, or is it a case of 'someone is wrong on the internet'

 

[braineclipse]

Jeez, it was NOT atomically dated (the secondary footage you posted) and could have been taken at any OTHER time. You make a cursory search and found something which fits your preconception, they said it was up against the window IN THE SAME SHOT which then shows in fact that they were at the back of the cabin, it shows staging (which is what the guy presents to the atronaughts in the second video). The weather patterns were from where? NASA? if they were staging something would they not match these two off?

Well, if you trawl the net you find people who have taken ALOT of time to research this, in both camps, the reason I said about theories, rather than fact, is that you started making claims of indisputable facts as if this somehow strengthens an argument (this is an NLP technique to debate). I don't think, in this case, that it can prove beyond reasonable doubt, on either side, no.

What exactly do you mean by the atomically dated bit? In what way was the footage atomically dated? Do you have a link to that cause based on what I know about atomic dating this doesn't make much sense to me.



Is it in the same shot? Please explain to me how that is the same shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P--LtfuzX8M&feature=player_embedded#!

6:11 - We only have one window... From the astronaut.
(-This is then followed by the misrepresentation from the narrator where she misquotes the astronaut by adding "completely", she then makes the assumption that it's an arm that covers the shot leading to the rather laughable claim that the camera couldn't be completely up against the window because a person couldn't fit between the window and the camera. But I digress.)

6:50 - There is a clear change of footage. The narrator even says at 6:55 "this is a segment that they..." It's clear both from the video and commentary that this is at a different time from when the comment above came from the astronaut.

Am I watching the wrong part of the documentary? If so please give me the time I'm supposed to be watching. If this is what you meant I don't understand how you can claim that this is the same shot...

 

[Gifter]

Not at all. Unless you read intent that isnt there. If I wanted to offend I would certainly have done a better job, it wasnt my intention at all.

You are, for want of a better term, a conspiracy nut. If I allow myself to get dragged into that sort of debate it will inevitably be on your terms given your experience with this subject.

I have no intention of wasting my time doing such, that is all.

Funny that someone who talks of being open minded and looking for pure truth etc deals in preconceptions as much as the next guy...

Try to sugar coat all you like, you know you threw out a barely covered insult, then say you didn't mean it, but repeat it for good measure, more openly spelt out by linking the two together. Poor form twice.

I could call you alot of things in return, but prefer to keep my decorum, maybe you should do some introspection into why you feel the need to insult people with differing views like this.

We were all brought up in similar ways (societal conditioning), so of course I have preconceptions, prejudices, foibles, like the next guy.

 

[DaveYid]

So this supposedly fake footage of the earth in the window, the people who covered it all up just left this incriminating evidence lying around NASA for someone to pass on to a conspiracy theorist? Seems strange that they managed to fool 75% of the leading nations that they landed on the moon but nobody had the sense to desttoy the footage that would prove they faked it.

 

[braineclipse]

You wouldn't need a seperate crew to control it, they were communicating directly

Communicating directly with who?

Are you saying that the ground crew and control room at NASA would be doing the exact same things if it was a manned as if it was an unmanned craft apart from talking with the astronauts?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Gifter, if you are insulted it is on you, not me. I meant no insult whatsoever, and have no repeated that three times.

You are an internet nobody, a vitual entity - why would I try and hide ill intent? I wouldnt. If I wanted to upset I would not be subtle about it. Take my words at face value, instead of looking for hidden meaning.

The point of the supposed insult is that if you get drawn into an argument with someone in a field they are much more comfortable than you are then you will almost inevitably be lead around the houses by their greater experience.

It really is that simple.

I think they landed on the moon, I think there is no good reason to believe otherwise. You have clearly spent a great deal of time building up a whole theory and belief system to the opposite effect - Im simply not interested enough to get involved in that argument given Im coming in cold.

Not poor form. No insults offered. No need for introspection. TWO explanations given now. I havent even "called you" anything, aside from conspiracy nut - which was qualified at the time. If there is a better term to use please enlighten me.

 

[braineclipse]

almost sound offended at the thought that it might be faked, or is it a case of 'someone is wrong on the internet'

Not all opinions deserve to be treated with respect.

 

[THFC]

If you read my post then you might understand, Space shuttle into space > communicating with those in space

 

[braineclipse]

So this supposedly fake footage of the earth in the window, the people who covered it all up just left this incriminating evidence lying around NASA for someone to pass on to a conspiracy theorist? Seems strange that they managed to fool 75% of the leading nations that they landed on the moon but nobody had the sense to desttoy the footage that would prove they faked it.

It's a problem with all the grand conspiracy theories. These brilliant people, capable of pulling off these astonishing feats of deception through intense planning seemingly make the dumbest mistakes ever.

 

[Gifter]

Gifter, if you are insulted it is on you, not me. I meant no insult whatsoever, and have no repeated that three times.

You are an internet nobody, a vitual entity - why would I try and hide ill intent? I wouldnt. If I wanted to upset I would not be subtle about it. Take my words at face value, instead of looking for hidden meaning.

The point of the supposed insult is that if you get drawn into an argument with someone in a field they are much more comfortable than you are then you will almost inevitably be lead around the houses by their greater experience.

It really is that simple.

I think they landed on the moon, I think there is no good reason to believe otherwise. You have clearly spent a great deal of time building up a whole theory and belief system to the opposite effect - Im simply not interested enough to get involved in that argument given Im coming in cold.

Not poor form. No insults offered. No need for introspection. TWO explanations given now. I havent even "called you" anything, aside from conspiracy nut - which was qualified at the time. If there is a better term to use please enlighten me.

That's fine, if you don't think calling someone an idiot is an insult. I suspect when someone calls you it, you do feel insulted though.

I've already said, in terms of this subject, I have little emotional investment whether it was true or not. It's the popcorn of conspiracy IMO.

 

[braineclipse]

If you read my post then you might understand, Space shuttle into space > communicating with those in space

So the 3 astronauts in low earth orbit would have with them the equipment to remote control the part of the craft going to the moon from where they were at. They would then relay the information from the ground through those remote controls.

Assuming that this was technically possible for the sake of argument, you would then at the very least need to include the design and manufacturing people in the conspiracy as they would be building something different from what they were told.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

That's fine, if you don't think calling someone an idiot is an insult. I suspect when someone calls you it, you do feel insulted though.

I've already said, in terms of this subject, I have little emotional investment whether it was true or not. It's the popcorn of conspiracy IMO.

For the umptenth time I did not call you an idiot. Sheesh.

Perhaps conspiracy nut is the best thing to call you