TELVM wrote:

carlostex wrote:

... That experiment in Brazil ...

No experiment at all, she just visited Guarapari beach with a counter. Guarapari is a holiday resort that makes no attempt to hide it's 'radioactive secret' 🤣 :

I know, i mentioned "experiment" not as a real experiment per se. 🤣

DonutKing wrote:

I clicked this thread expecting sliderider to be the only person arguing for the landings being a hoax. I was not disappointed 😀 🤣

I wasn't arguing for it being a hoax. I was trying to get people to realize that basing your perception of reality solely on what other people tell you without verifying things for yourself is a pretty dangerous way to live.

What if we're all living in a computer simulated "reality" like in the Matrix films? Would ANYTHING that the TV news reporter (or anyone else, for that matter) tells you be real when reality itself isn't? Would anything that you see with your own computer simulated eyes be real or would they be the product of your senses being manipulated by outside forces to make you *BELIEVE* that it was real? How do you know that anyone else entering messages on this forum are real, for that matter? All you see are words on a screen. How do you *know* that there are actual people behind those words? How do you know that all the messages posted here aren't being done by a single machine pretending to be all the people here?

How do you know that YOU even exist? Maybe you're a figment of someone else's imagination, an actor in a dream. How do you know that you won't cease to exist when they wake up? What if you're a computer that has been programmed with human memories and a human personality and you never actually experienced any of the things that you think you have? What if everything you know and remember is just data that someone entered into a storage device and gave you access to? So you have no way at all of truly knowing what is real and what isn't. It's real because some "expert" told you it was real? What if the so called "expert" is merely a hallucination in your own mind? Does his word mean anything then? Think about it.

sliderider wrote:

How do you know that YOU even exist? Maybe you're a figment of someone else's imagination, an actor in a dream. How do you know that you won't cease to exist when they wake up?

Descartes said "Cogito ergo sum." -- I think therefore I am. Thinking about your existence means, ipso facto, that there's an "I" to do the thinking.

It then doesn't matter if existence is a dream or a simulation, you're a mind within it, and your interactions with it are as real as real gets for the mind experiencing them.

SquallStrife wrote:

sliderider wrote:

How do you know that YOU even exist? Maybe you're a figment of someone else's imagination, an actor in a dream. How do you know that you won't cease to exist when they wake up?

Descartes said "Cogito ergo sum." -- I think therefore I am. Thinking about your existence means, ipso facto, that there's an "I" to do the thinking.

It then doesn't matter if existence is a dream or a simulation, you're a mind within it, and your interactions with it are as real as real gets for the mind experiencing them.

A Neurologist and philosopher disputed that claim by Descartes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error

Anyway, we're getting out of topic. Sliderider is going away to far in existencialism. Where do we come from and why are we here is not the issue. If we're gonna think like this we might as well all commit mass suicide as there would be no purpose in life. I am pretty sure i'm not a product of someone's dream.

carlostex wrote:

I am pretty sure i'm not a product of someone's dream.

And that's where you are wrong, Whateley, for the very reason of our blasphemous existence is nothing but a dream, as the scholars in Miskatonic University have discovered the reason why the Outer Gods dance rhythmically around Azathoth, in cadence to the piping of a demonic flute, because if Azathoth awakens, we would all come into oblivion, for our very existence is nothing but a product of the dream of the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space. And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic, tenebrous ultimate gods—the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul is Nyarlathotep. Iä! Iä! Shub-Niggurath!

Sorry, can't resist. 😁

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

carlostex wrote:

I am pretty sure i'm not a product of someone's dream.

And that's where you are wrong, Whateley, for the very reason of our blasphemous existence is nothing but a dream, as the scholars in Miskatonic University have discovered the reason why the Outer Gods dance rhythmically around Azathoth, in cadence to the piping of a demonic flute, because if Azathoth awakens, we would all come into oblivion, for our very existence is nothing but a product of the dream of the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space. And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic, tenebrous ultimate gods—the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul is Nyarlathotep. Iä! Iä! Shub-Niggurath!

Sorry, can't resist. 😁

I was about to ask you what were you smoking! 🤣

carlostex wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

carlostex wrote:

I am pretty sure i'm not a product of someone's dream.

And that's where you are wrong, Whateley, for the very reason of our blasphemous existence is nothing but a dream, as the scholars in Miskatonic University have discovered the reason why the Outer Gods dance rhythmically around Azathoth, in cadence to the piping of a demonic flute, because if Azathoth awakens, we would all come into oblivion, for our very existence is nothing but a product of the dream of the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space. And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic, tenebrous ultimate gods—the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul is Nyarlathotep. Iä! Iä! Shub-Niggurath!

Sorry, can't resist. 😁

I was about to ask you what were you smoking! 🤣

A peculiar herb that has existed since the pre-Hyperborean era, first discovered alongside the oddly starfish-shaped fungus found among cyclopean ruins of Irem by Abdul Alhazred, the so-called "Mad Arab" when he sought forth the forbidden knowledge of the Old Ones. The herb is supposed to be dried and ground into powder in a ritual so blasphemous that it is not even included in the Iron-Bound Books of Shuma-Gorath, for not even the sorcerer Sise-Neg dared to risk his own sanity when he wrote the accursed volumes. It was rumored when Professor Randolph Gilman of Miskatonic University attempted to re-create the ritual - which is said to involve human sacrifice - the night was disturbed by the sound of a seemingly limitless legion of whippoorwills that cried their endless message in repetitions timed diabolically to the wheezing gasps of the dying man. It was uncanny and unnatural - too much. Although the authority categorically denied the existence of such blasphemous attempt, they all remained tight-lipped whenever asked why the good professor eventually, inevitably, ended in an asylum.

PS: come on, nobody catches the reference? Nyarlathothep shall devour your soul! 🤣

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

PS: come on, nobody catches the reference? Nyarlathothep shall devour your soul! 🤣

I think you love being a crafty person. 😀

A little more today...

Oh so expert "self-taught engineer" and as himself liked to say "extra bright kid from the slums" Mr. Ralph René, was one of the proponents of the so called C-Rock theory. Mr. René said that someone who worked in Hollywood told him it was common to label props so that prop men could place props on their correct position.

This is the photo that was responsible for so much stupid controversy. A lot of photos were being rescanned to present in several publications and unlike today where these photos are probably rescanned and enhanced on super clean environments the reason why something like that would happen would be just a small piece of lint or even dust got in the scanning process.

The original photo was labeled AS16-107-17446:

Oh but Nasa airbrushed the C out...

How about this photo taken seconds earlier:

C-rockery? More like Crackpottery... 🤣

Caught lying!!!

Self proclaimed "Grandson of the moon hoax theory" Jarrah "Kangaboy" White, released a new video, an addendum to his Radioactive anomaly Moonfaker series, where he argues that it was not possible to go through the Van Allen Belts without astronauts dying from lethal radiation dosage.

He does some math in this video, and well... He was caught cheating... He acknowledged he made a mistake, but still cheats to get numbers to keep his theory alive.

His video in question is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzkmHaZJI8

A user at abovetopsecret forums notic Jarrah's faulty math by doing the math himself:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread102 … pg2#pid18191964

In the meantime people in the youtube comments section of his video have been wondering in which Australian University is he supposedly taking his astrophisics degree...

Well this is an odd topic, 🤣. I would agree with the others though, why even bring this up?

While I do believe that there is lots of stuff we aren't let in on, I don't think the
moon landing was faked. For what it would cost to fake, you might as well
go ahead and actually do it. No amount of evidence or rational argument
will convince someone that thinks it is a hoax, just like the people that think
the government is run by reptile shape-shifters.

King_Corduroy wrote:

Well this is an odd topic, 🤣. I would agree with the others though, why even bring this up?

It was quite the technological achievement, and the hoax proponents try to come to grips with the technology to keep their theory alive. One of the arguments is that the Apollo navigational computers were too slow.

In fact the following video brings the video technology question in the time of the Apollo missions. Would the video technology at that time enable them to fake what we saw?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

snorg wrote:

While I do believe that there is lots of stuff we aren't let in on, I don't think the moon landing was faked. For what it wou […]
Show full quote

While I do believe that there is lots of stuff we aren't let in on, I don't think the
moon landing was faked. For what it would cost to fake, you might as well
go ahead and actually do it. No amount of evidence or rational argument
will convince someone that thinks it is a hoax, just like the people that think
the government is run by reptile shape-shifters.

Compared to the cost of building and launching a rocket the size of a Saturn V with all the technical support that goes along with it, building a moon set on a soundstage is cheap. Don't forget, the Commodore 64 has more computing power than what NASA would have had in the 1960's so it would have taken an agonizingly long time to perform all the calculations necessary for a successful moonshot and the computers required would have cost millions of dollars.

carlostex wrote:

In fact the following video brings the video technology question in the time of the Apollo missions. Would the video technology at that time enable them to fake what we saw?

YES. How much tech do you need to build a believable looking lunar lander descending against a black backdrop landing on a dust covered stage?

sliderider wrote:

YES. How much tech do you need to build a believable looking lunar lander descending against a black backdrop landing on a dust covered stage?

OK DUDE!!!!

Show me some proof that that stage exists and i believe you.

But undulge me for now, and explain me how there was a vacuum in that sound stage. What they used wires on the astronauts and played the film at half speed?? Explain me some more... How about dust? Did NASA put wires on the dust too? Even today is hard to replicate what we saw on the moon landing telecasts. You can do it perfect with CGI, but you would need a battallion of scientists and mathematicians to ensure every movie frame respects laws of physics as we know they should on the moon.

The technology you need to go to the moon was there already in the 1960's. The biggest problem is to get you out of the planet earth and back in again. Rockets were powerful enough to get you out of the earth, we knew enough math to know that VAB radiation wasn't a major concern, and there was more than enough processing power on the Apollo Guidance Computer to make all the calculations required for proper navigation. Landing on the moon is a piece of cake compared to earth. There's no wind, no air, no drag and little gravity, you just need a good spot as you don't have any airfields there.

Then again another great risk is entering back on earth, allign the entrance properly, can't be too shallow or too steep. If the reentry capsule is properly shielded it won't be destroyed on reentry. You know it's what keeps the earth from being covered in craters like.... the moon.

Now explain me how 1960's video technology was able to replicate the moon environment. YES VIDEO!!! Film wouldn't work... Where would you get film mags big enough for a telecast that was 90 mins long? If they used 5 or 6 mags and spliced them together, how the hell they made it so you couldn't see splice marks on the footage? Did you bother to watch that youtube clip i posted above?

Explain me how on Apollo 15 the rover camera did a 360º pan... Man that was a massive sound stage!!! Wait, they hired Stanley Kubrick and he did some Front Projection just like on 2001? How the hell do you do 360º pans with front projection? 2001 front projection shots were mostly static because camera, projector and mirrors must be perfectly alligned otherwise you'll see the trickery.

Why is it so hard to believe that it was actually easier to go to the moon??

sliderider wrote:

Compared to the cost of building and launching a rocket the size of a Saturn V with all the technical support that goes along with it, building a moon set on a soundstage is cheap. Don't forget, the Commodore 64 has more computing power than what NASA would have had in the 1960's so it would have taken an agonizingly long time to perform all the calculations necessary for a successful moonshot and the computers required would have cost millions of dollars.

OK you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. You're just spewing out crap i'm sorry to say. You have absolutely no idea how much calculations were needed, or how much processing power they needed too. Dude this is the lamest argument i've ever read.

sliderider wrote:

Compared to the cost of building and launching a rocket the size of a Saturn V with all the technical support that goes along with it

Er, you do realize that there were close to one million people were on site to watch Apollo 11 live at cape Kennedy. So your sound stage must be the largest building ever built. That is also one hell of a lot of people to keep silent about your conspiracy. The explosion of new technologies that arose from the space program (that we still benefit from to this day) would not have happened from a sound stage. All of this insistence that some have about most "conspiracies" is just dumb.

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,2 … 1909613,00.html

carlostex wrote:

OK DUDE!!!! […]
Show full quote

sliderider wrote:

YES. How much tech do you need to build a believable looking lunar lander descending against a black backdrop landing on a dust covered stage?

OK DUDE!!!!

Show me some proof that that stage exists and i believe you.

But undulge me for now, and explain me how there was a vacuum in that sound stage. What they used wires on the astronauts and played the film at half speed?? Explain me some more... How about dust? Did NASA put wires on the dust too? Even today is hard to replicate what we saw on the moon landing telecasts. You can do it perfect with CGI, but you would need a battallion of scientists and mathematicians to ensure every movie frame respects laws of physics as we know they should on the moon.

The technology you need to go to the moon was there already in the 1960's. The biggest problem is to get you out of the planet earth and back in again. Rockets were powerful enough to get you out of the earth, we knew enough math to know that VAB radiation wasn't a major concern, and there was more than enough processing power on the Apollo Guidance Computer to make all the calculations required for proper navigation. Landing on the moon is a piece of cake compared to earth. There's no wind, no air, no drag and little gravity, you just need a good spot as you don't have any airfields there.

Then again another great risk is entering back on earth, allign the entrance properly, can't be too shallow or too steep. If the reentry capsule is properly shielded it won't be destroyed on reentry. You know it's what keeps the earth from being covered in craters like.... the moon.

Now explain me how 1960's video technology was able to replicate the moon environment. YES VIDEO!!! Film wouldn't work... Where would you get film mags big enough for a telecast that was 90 mins long? If they used 5 or 6 mags and spliced them together, how the hell they made it so you couldn't see splice marks on the footage? Did you bother to watch that youtube clip i posted above?

Explain me how on Apollo 15 the rover camera did a 360º pan... Man that was a massive sound stage!!! Wait, they hired Stanley Kubrick and he did some Front Projection just like on 2001? How the hell do you do 360º pans with front projection? 2001 front projection shots were mostly static because camera, projector and mirrors must be perfectly alligned otherwise you'll see the trickery.

Why is it so hard to believe that it was actually easier to go to the moon??

Who says a vacuum is required to fake a moon landing? Can you actually see a vacuum? No, you can't. To make the dust move, you just need a strong motor similar in principle to a vacuum cleaner motor blowing instead of sucking on the bottom of whatever you design as a lunar lander and that will blow the dust around like a retro rocket firing. The technology existed for this already. All this stuff could have been easily done using film technology from the 1930's, forget about the 1960's. They were already doing special effects well enough in the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials to pull off a fake moon landing. In the 1960's it would have been even easier.

As for the sound stage being massive, they could have filmed it in the Houston Astrodome for all we know. There are sports stadiums all over the country that could have been used for it.

As for all the scientific mumbo jumbo, do you really think the average TV viewer would have been sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a correct or incorrect approach angle? Do you really think anyone who did know the difference would speak out against the government? Odds are anyone who was sophisticated enough to know the difference would have been working for NASA and putting their job (and possibly their lives) at risk for speaking out.

Oh, and for your entertainment and amusement, I give you an episode of Star Trek from 1967, two years BEFORE the moon landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnhcrZ_RFqo

NOW tell me a moon landing couldn't have been faked using 1960's film technology.

Are you for real? Are you REALLY arguing that the moon landing was a fake? FOR GODS SAKE MAN THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES.

King_Corduroy wrote:

Are you for real? Are you REALLY arguing that the moon landing was a fake? FOR GODS SAKE MAN THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES.

I'm not arguing that it WAS fake, I am arguing that it COULD HAVE BEEN fake. The technology was there. Look at any sci-fi TV show or film from the 1960's and you can see that a moon landing would have been a piece of cake. An episode of Star Trek would have been much more difficult and expensive to do than a moon landing.

Don't forget how the public went out of their minds when Orson Welles broadcast War of the Worlds on radio. The public is gullible enough to believe whatever they see on TV and if you think the government and the media don't rely heavily on that fact, then you are VERY naive.

And who was the one who revived the thread after it was dead for 5 months? Not me.