Moon Landing is a Fake

[DFWMike]

Yea, this pretty much goes to the who cares category. Just a needless addition to all the other wacky sounding accusations against the government that continue to diminish this fields credibility.

You've got somebody, somewhere continuing to take every thing the government has done and throw it out there as though it is fact that they conspire against in every way imaginable. Why don't ya go over and join The Unknown Country.com and discuss this, I bet that could go some strange places quick.

 

[BrandonD]

Yea, this pretty much goes to the who cares category. Just a needless addition to all the other wacky sounding accusations against the government that continue to diminish this fields credibility.

You've got somebody, somewhere continuing to take every thing the government has done and throw it out there as though it is fact that they conspire against in every way imaginable. Why don't ya go over and join The Unknown Country.com and discuss this, I bet that could go some strange places quick.

There are people who strive for credibility, and people who strive for actually learning. They are seldom compatible, and whichever one is more important to you is eventually going to stomp out the other one.

This subject is not a wacky accusation at all, it is no more wacky than the accusation that the administration's 9/11 explanation is bogus. You only call this subject wacky because you strive for credibility, and you want people in the paranormal field to cease their interest in subjects that might harm this field's credibility.

But here's a forecast for you: The field of the paranormal is *never* going to have any credibility. This fight to make paranormal subjects "legitimate" in the eyes of contemporary science is futile. My 2 cents.

 

[musictomyears]

There are people who strive for credibility, and people who strive for actually learning. They are seldom compatible, and whichever one is more important to you is eventually going to stomp out the other one.

This subject is not a wacky accusation at all, it is no more wacky than the accusation that the administration's 9/11 explanation is bogus. You only call this subject wacky because you strive for credibility, and you want people in the paranormal field to cease their interest in subjects that might harm this field's credibility.

But here's a forecast for you: The field of the paranormal is *never* going to have any credibility. This fight to make paranormal subjects "legitimate" in the eyes of contemporary science is futile. My 2 cents.

You make a very interesting point.

All I might add is: Beware of things everybody "knows" to be true.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Without us going to the moon, there would be no Tang instant breakfast drink.

I don't know about you, but I'd go to the moon for some Moon-tang.

 

[BrandonD]

Without us going to the moon, there would be no Tang instant breakfast drink.

I don't know about you, but I'd go to the moon for some Moon-tang.

I'll second that one.

 

[pixelsmith]

and what would you go to Uranus for?

 

[Tommy Allison]

A klondike bar?

 

[BrandonD]

As a video expert, I would really like to hear David's comments on the analysis by other video experts in this video:

 

[Rick Deckard]

As a video expert, I would really like to hear David's comments on the analysis by other video experts in this video:

Well, I'd be surprised if DB was prepared to spend any time on this - I think he's made his feelings quite clear about the authenticity of the moon landings. He is in no doubt that they were real.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As a video expert, I would really like to hear David's comments on the analysis by other video experts in this video:

Well, I'd be surprised if DB was prepared to spend any time on this - I think he's made his feelings quite clear about the authenticity of the moon landings. He is in no doubt that they were real.

That really makes two of us. While it would be a fascinating conspiracy theory to learn it was all a fake, I just think there are too many other fish to fry, with more to recommend.

 

[Rick Deckard]

That really makes two of us. While it would be a fascinating conspiracy theory to learn it was all a fake, I just think there are too many other fish to fry, with more to recommend.

I myself, have always had nagging doubts.

I am convinced of a UFO 'conver-up' and that the JFK assassination and the 9/11 events do indeed involve US agencies, so the idea that the Moon Landings were faked isn't such a 'giant leap' (pun intended) for me.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

That really makes two of us. While it would be a fascinating conspiracy theory to learn it was all a fake, I just think there are too many other fish to fry, with more to recommend.

I myself, have always had nagging doubts.

I am convinced of a UFO 'conver-up' and that the JFK assassination and the 9/11 events do indeed involve US agencies, so the idea that the Moon Landings were faked isn't such a 'giant leap' (pun intended) for me.

I don't know about 9/11, except for exposing an awful lot of incompetence in our government, but you never know.

JFK, why of course

 

[Rick Deckard]

I don't know about 9/11, except for exposing an awful lot of incompetence in our government, but you never know.

Playing the 'incompetence' card is just too easy in this case.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I don't know about 9/11, except for exposing an awful lot of incompetence in our government, but you never know.

Playing the 'incompetence' card is just too easy in this case.

There's an interesting movie made in the last decade called, "The Long Kiss Goodnight." Forgetting the main character situation, where Geena Davis plays a former CIA assassin who sustains amnesia during an auto wreck. Instead look at the villains, the CIA, creating a terrorist incident because they want to stop the budget cutbacks.

Look at another movie that mirrors what the government might be doing, "The Siege," which starred Tony Shalhaub (TV's "Monk") in a supporting role as an Arab-born FBI agent who finds his son rounded up and placed in an internment camp. But the core issue here is that we trained people there, used them for intelligence and so on and so forth, then abandoned them. Now they come back to take their revenge.

I think both movies had strong messages that should be taken seriously. I'll go that far.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Well, I've been reading about 9/11 for a while now and there are just *too many* aspects of the 'official conspiracy theory' (because that is what it is) that don't add up.

But the crux of it for me, is the way that the 3 buildings came down - you show the footage of those collapses back-to-back with known controlled demolitions and your own eyes will tell you that they were brought down in a controlled fashion.

If the two towers came down in the 'pancake' fashion as described in the official report then why wasn't the massive steel-beamed core left sticking several hundred feet proud of the rubble? And why was the steel core so hastily removed and melted-down before a thorough analysis could be done? BECAUSE IT WAS CUT BY THERMITE AND REMOVED TO COVER-UP THAT FACT.

I'm off-topic, so I'll leave it there. Suffice to say that 'incompetence' just doesn't cut it for me.

 

[BrandonD]

That really makes two of us. While it would be a fascinating conspiracy theory to learn it was all a fake, I just think there are too many other fish to fry, with more to recommend.

I understand your point of view, and I think many people hold this point of view because the framing of the issue is incorrect. I don't think that it was necessarily "all a fake", and I don't think the evidence supports the idea that it was all a fake. Like many things, the devil is in the details.

Giving some thought to the subject recently, here is how I think it can be re-framed: What a person can conclude from the available evidence is that many of the well-known photos we associate with the moon landing were actually taken in a studio setting with artificial lighting.

Recognizing this, the first conclusion that immediately jumps to one's mind is that "the moon landings were staged", but this is not necessarily the case. All we can reasonably conclude is that many nasa photos associated with the moon landing were actually taken in a studio.

The particular video I cited has some very technical photo analysis, which is why I thought it might be interesting for David to have a look at. I'm not interested in winning over anyone, just interested in another expert's opinions. If it's debunked, so be it. My interest in the paranormal does not ride on the apollo program.

If we can find any chink in the facade, I think it is worthwhile to take a pick and try to crack it open. It may be helpful towards our understanding of the overall picture.

 

[pixelsmith]

BrandonD
DB will not even take a second look at anything having to do with the moon landings. he has closed his mind to the subject. even tho you can plainly see wires picking up fallen asstronots, secondary light sources, etc etc etc etc.... he will not change his mind.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

BrandonD
DB will not even take a second look at anything having to do with the moon landings. he has closed his mind to the subject. even tho you can plainly see wires picking up fallen asstronots, secondary light sources, etc etc etc etc.... he will not change his mind.

David is an image editing expert, which means he can detect fakery. If you can show him something that he cannot refute, I'm sure he'll be perfectly willing to examine it further. But it has to be compelling.

 

[pixelsmith]

i dont doubt DB abilities, i have been a fan of his for many years and i still am. i do know he is human. humans make mistakes.
i have used photoshop since the beta .08 or something. i have had a camera in my hands since i was 7 and i am now 52. i may not be considered an expert, nor do i have a formal education in photography but i do know from many years of experience on Earth that these shots are not likely from the Moon.
i know we went down this road awhile back and i believe i said the moon landings probably happened but the images NASA provided are not all from the moon. the images in the link provided are a great place to start re-thinking this stuff. it is impossible to light the subjects on the moon with the equipment they brought with. yes surface reflections can produce a little fill in light but not to the extent shown in the photos. no way.

 

[BrandonD]

David is an image editing expert, which means he can detect fakery. If you can show him something that he cannot refute, I'm sure he'll be perfectly willing to examine it further. But it has to be compelling.

I cannot show a person something that they cannot refute, anyone can refute anything because refutation has nothing to do with facts, it has to do with a person's skill at argument and debate. I have an interesting sufi story that illustrates this, but it is too long for this post.

I think that David has top-notch skills, I don't contest that. Like many other experts, I don't think this is where the fault lies. The fault lies in his intellectual stance: "This subject is not worthwhile and thus I will discount all information without consideration."

Is this not how "ordinary Joes" behave toward the ufo subject? You can place information right in front of their face and they'll refute it because they've already concluded the subject is bogus?

David often talks about other people not being able to handle the truth of the ufo enigma because it doesn't fit in with their preconceived notions of what the truth is. This is said with the implicit assumption that he's smart enough to be immune to this type of thinking. Unfortunately he is not immune, just like most everyone that I know (including myself). It requires continuous effort to break out of that position, which is the default position.

That link I put up earlier is a great place to start, as I said this video is of image analysis experts providing evidence that many of the well-known photos we associate with the moon landing were in fact taken in a studio setting. Their arguments make perfect sense to me - I'm a graphic image designer by trade, but I wouldn't consider myself an "image analysis expert". So I think it would be worthwhile for the resident image expert to check it out.

Though I can't conceive of how it would be done, perhaps this whole video is an example of trickery and deception? It doesn't matter to me, for those of us who are interested in learning, we win either way.