Moon landing faked? Lets take a look...

[UserName]

Originally posted by Bodhi
The funniest thing about this whole discussion is the fact that two absolutely total eurotrash tards are arguing that it did not happen, yet they have no proof to substatiate their argument.  Makes you wonder why their nations are the way they are....

I think it's funnier that you American tards are actually responding to their allegations.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Mini D
What happend to the "only the first one was faked" argument hortlund?  Come now... run out of evidence for that one?  

[/b]
Have I ever tried to prove that? Reading comprehension is a good thing D, you should try to brush up on your ability in that area.

Or did you finally read up on the theory a little bit and find the conspiracy theory people were pulling photos from all of the landings to prove their point?

[/b]
Personally, I think the van Allen belt rad-levels is a more productive way of arguing...but thats just me.

That kinda blows the whole "How do you explain moon-rocks" "explanation" you offered up.

[/b]
Did I offer an explanation or did I quote a conspiracy theory?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by JoeSmoe
I hear that you are a "Judge" of sorts?..  If that is the case, then you are someone who is supposed to have the abilty of perception, and understanding.

As I said Joe, critical thinking is a good thing.

From your posts in this thread so far, you have yet to show evidence that you are capable of coherent thought, not to mention independent thinking.

[Mini D]

Wow hortlund.  This is very special.  Are you going to stop trying to stir the **** and actually try to sound intellectual now?

Its a bit late.

I know you'd like to think you really didn't try to prove anything.  After all, you didn't "prove" anything... only spewed it.  But, you did bring it up as if it were valid.  Reading comprehension isn't the problem hortlund.  It was the presentation.

You haven't presented a single coherent thought in this thread, yet you now try to come off as intellectual.  Citing someone else's point(s) may be the only way for you to try to sound smart, so maybe you should stick to it.  You haven't demonstrated the capacity to show anything original or insightfull as far as intelluality goes.

MiniD

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Mini D
But, you did bring it up as if it were valid.  Reading comprehension isn't the problem hortlund.  It was the presentation.

[/b]
And since everyone knows that that is all about perception, you admit that the fault is in your own head?

You haven't presented a single coherent thought in this thread, yet you now try to come off as intellectual.

 Citing someone else's point(s) may be the only way for you to try to sound smart, so maybe you should stick to it.  You haven't demonstrated the capacity to show anything original or insightfull as far as intelluality goes.

*shrugs* I'm not trying to come off as anything. I know my own abilities, and I see little need to try to prove myself on an internet BB. I leave that to tards like you.

[Mini D]

Ah.. gotcha hortlund.  I guess that explains your.. what... 20 posts in this thread?

Continue to downplay all of the stupid things you've said in this thread hortlund.  And continue to act as if saying:

 " As I said Joe, critical thinking is a good thing.

From your posts in this thread so far, you have yet to show evidence that you are capable of coherent thought, not to mention independent thinking."

doesn't necessarily mean you are trying to "come off as anything".

You can't just shut idiocy off hortlund.  The text is still there.

MiniD

[GRUNHERZ]

Well hortlund if you are not out to prove your superior intelligence that should give you plenty of time to prove the "sun" reflections are too large...

And yea go ahead and insult me and the others again - that will prove the reflection size thing you have been arguing..

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Mini D
Ah.. gotcha hortlund.  I guess that explains your.. what... 20 posts in this thread?

[/b]
Actually I thought I had explained my position in this thread. I do not doubt the moonlandings, Ive never said I did. I have seen something that I do not understand and I have no explanation for. This is what I wrote to Grun, it should sum up my position nicely.

Have you ever seen anything you cannot explain Grun?

If yes, did it make you curious or did it make you scared?

If you look back in this thread, you will see alot of people posting out of their a$es. "Its the sun" (even though it is about 50 times too big in the first picture) and then clinging to that opinion of theirs.

JoeSmoe is a good example of someone who doesnt want to think for himself. He is presented with a picture that cant really be explained, and his immideate reaction is denial. So ok, we can conclude that if JoeSmoe is faced with something he cannot explain, he gets scared because (probably) for some reason the concept of critical thinking is too complext for him.
btw...ra displays the same character trait (note how I abstained from using the word flaw). As does several other posters in this thread.

I am of the opinion that there are things that science cannot explain. Those things make me curious. Those very same things scare the cheese out of others. That is all fine and well.

The thing that bugs me is when people like ra, joesmoe and you talk about stuff you really dont know anything about in a way as if it was the one and only truth.

Now, grun, I'm going to say this again. The lightsource on the first picture is not the sun. The reflection of the sun is too big in all the pictures I have posted. Why is that? I dont know. It makes me curious though.

Now alot of people have claimed that the reflection in the visor is indeed the sun and they have tried to explain how the reflection could be 10-20 times larger than it should be. Personally I doubt their explanations, for several reasons.

Continue to downplay all of the stupid things you've said in this thread hortlund.  And continue to act as if saying:

 " As I said Joe, critical thinking is a good thing.

From your posts in this thread so far, you have yet to show evidence that you are capable of coherent thought, not to mention independent thinking."

doesn't necessarily mean you are trying to "come off as anything".

You can't just shut idiocy off hortlund.  The text is still there.

Well, my personal opinion is that I havent said anything stupid in this thread at all. On the other hand, I suspect both you and JoeSmoe feels you havent said anything stupid either. *shrugs* maybe we are all right, maybe we are all wrong. Who cares? I do know that personally I think Joe is an idiot.

As for yourself, you are falling back into the cheerleader position you know oh-so-well from this board and others...

I see something I find strange, to me it is a mystery and it makes me curious, people offer explanations, but I question these explanations given. You jump in and call me stupid and an idiot. That puts you in the same category as JoeSmoe, you just use more and more complicated words to say the same thing as he does.

Are you still doing drugs btw?

[GRUNHERZ]

Why dont you prove it is 10-20 times bigger, so far you are just saying so....

[Mini D]

Umm... people offer up explanations, and you question them.

OK... maybe I just misread what you posted in this thread:

"Explain that lightsource. (and no, it's too big to be the sun)"

No... that wasn't really you saying that.  You were just questioning... well... someone's... wait... no... quoting... no... not quoting.

You dismissed the obvious (and correct) answer on your first post.  You dismissed it later in other posts.  That is simply idiocy.  Sorry you feel it is well thought out and that makes it brilliant.  But nobody ever said idiots didn't think... just that they did it badly.

You also said:

"I always thought that the conspiracy theory was that only the first landing was faked. This to meet JFKs challenge. The yanks went there afterwards and collected their rocks and took their real pictures"

"I so dont want to get into this, but that is the original conspiracy theory as I have heard it, and there are a couple of unexplainables with that first lunar landing."

Though... you don't really know for sure.  You just made the second statement to validate the first.  Do you know that the conspiracy theories are compiled from various missions... not just the first?

And... have you ever seen any comparison of effects seen in photos vs the other missions vs photos in the first pointing out differences?  I'm going to bet you haven't.  I'm also going to bet you "so don't want to get into this either"... except maybe to post another 20 times on how your not trying to prove anything.

MiniD

[Nash]

Roughly.... When was it that this forum became so retarded?

[Maniac]

You are all Dweebs, or nerds actually...

[Arlo]

Vhy is Eldreen's reeght seede-a, vheech is in shedoo su vell leet? Es iff frum a secundery leeght suoorce-a tu lefft ooff cemera puseeshun 'ffeelling in'zee shedoos Eldreen eppeers tu be-a stundeeng in a 'puul' ooff leeght, es iff frum a lerge-a sput leeght. Um de hur de hur de hur. Yet zee oonly knoon suoorce-a ooff leeght is zee Soon, vheech vuoold geefe-a ifee illoomeeneshun frum cemera tu hureezun. Bork bork bork! Zee beckgruoond is oooot iff fucoos, vheech vuoold nut ooccoor vhee useeng a veede-a ungle-a lens in breeght leeght. Um de hur de hur de hur. Zee epertoore-a used vuoold be-a eruoond f8 oor f11 Ermstrung hes hees cemera etteched tu hees chest peck. Yet zee feeoopuint ooff thees peectoore-a is es iff zee cemera is et heed heeeght. Um de hur de hur de hur. Yuoo ere-a luukeeng doon oon Eldreen und cun see-a zee tup ooff hees helmet und zee tup ooff hees beckpeck. Zee gruoond betveee zee tvu is lefel.

[Imp]

Originally posted by Nash
Roughly.... When was it that this forum became so retarded?

Its not the boards, they dont have personality.

At least I dont think they do.

<--- Puts tinfoil hat on is head and crawls under the desk wishing he was a religious guys

[Scootter]

Originally posted by Hortlund
*sigh* against my better judgement...



Explain that lightsource. (and no, it's too big to be the sun)

Why is it to big to be the sun? Please provide the proof for this statement.

Explained:

Low image quality combined with a curved visor  give the larger look to the flair in the picture. Go to an airstrip on a bright day and look at the sun flares in various aircraft glass and you will see a wide verity of sizes and shaped of flares.  This in conjunction with the low (compared to more recent) resolution of the LIGHTWEIGHT cameras used have produced the image you are showing.

Oh and by the way Elvis is dead, he really is, sorry for the bad news.