The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2008, 09:18:30 PM
-
I was browsing around the internet and found that someone uploaded Fox's moon landing special onto Google Video. Take a look. Some of the expert interviews are interesting.
Summary:
"Fox TV network aired a program called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert. According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it."
Click Here. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484&q=nasa+conspiracy&total=513&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2)
-
Goodie!
-
And here is a web site dedicated to refuting the claims of a moon landing "hoax".
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Bad: Right at the beginning, they have a disclaimer:
The following program deals with a controversial subject. The theories expressed are not the only possible explanation. Viewers are invited to make a judgment based on all available information.
Good: The last thing the writers of this program want the viewers to do is make an informed decision. If they did, they would have given equal time to both sides of this controversy. Instead, the vast majority of the time is given to the HBs, with only scattered (and very vague) dismissive statements by skeptics. So the available information is really only what they tell you. Of course, there are a lot of websites talking about this. I have a list of them on my own site.
-
I've seen it. It's pathetic, much like any fox special. Not alot of fact, but a whole lot of "Oh my god! Did we REALLY land on the MOON?!".
-
And here is a web site dedicated to refuting the claims of a moon landing "hoax".
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
I don't know why that website claims that the show didn't play fair. They clearly did. On side hand we had experts pointing out discrepancies with the footage and images. In response we saw the NASA apologists mumbling "it's all a coincidence!" The NASA critics in the Fox special are pretty much saying the exact same thing that guy on that badastronomy website is saying.
Identical backgrounds, the expert interviews, a NASA Safety Inspector accidentally killed by a moving train just before he publishes his 500 page report outing the Apollo Program fro the fraud it was, it 's clearly not all a coincidence.
-
And here is a web site dedicated to refuting the claims of a moon landing "hoax".
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
I don't know why that website claims that the show didn't play fair. They clearly did. On side hand we had experts pointing out discrepancies with the footage and images. In response we saw the NASA apologists mumbling "it's all a coincidence!" The NASA critics in the Fox special are pretty much saying the exact same thing as that guy on that badastronomy website.
Identical backgrounds, NASA Safety Inspector and his family accidentally killed by a moving train just before he publishes his 500 page report criticizing the Apollo Program, it all adds up.
Woah, wait you're ACTUALLY beleiving the fox special? Jesus.. i didn't think you were THAT dumb. My god man...
There is PLENTY of good evidence showing that we haven't been on the moon, and there is no visual confirmation thus far to prove it.. PLEASE USE THAT AND NOT A SPECIAL THAT WAS MADE BY FOX TO GET RATINGS!!! This is the wrong source for information.. Fox is SKEWED!
-
There is PLENTY of good evidence showing that we haven't been on the moon, and there is no visual confirmation thus far to prove it..
Yeah, I know that already. What's your point?
PLEASE USE THAT AND NOT A SPECIAL THAT WAS MADE BY FOX TO GET RATINGS!!! This is the wrong source for information.. Fox is SKEWED!
Sure they are. ::)
-
There is PLENTY of good evidence showing that we haven't been on the moon, and there is no visual confirmation thus far to prove it..
Yeah, I know that already. What's your point?
PLEASE USE THAT AND NOT A SPECIAL THAT WAS MADE BY FOX TO GET RATINGS!!! This is the wrong source for information.. Fox is SKEWED!
Sure they are. ::)
Well that only means that you're a fool. More of a fool than I thought you were. Next you'll be calling it the Sexbox ::) dumbass
-
Well that only means that you're a fool. More of a fool than I thought you were. Next you'll be calling it the Sexbox ::) dumbass
Fox Network airs a show demonstrating that NASA to be a conspiracy. Your only response is "FOX IS A CONSPIRACY!!!"
Do you realize how dumb that makes you look?
-
And here is a web site dedicated to refuting the claims of a moon landing "hoax".
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
I don't know why that website claims that the show didn't play fair. They clearly did. On side hand we had experts pointing out discrepancies with the footage and images. In response we saw the NASA apologists mumbling "it's all a coincidence!" The NASA critics in the Fox special are pretty much saying the exact same thing that guy on that badastronomy website is saying.
Identical backgrounds, the expert interviews, a NASA Safety Inspector accidentally killed by a moving train just before he publishes his 500 page report criticizing the Apollo Program, it clearly not a coincidence.
Well, like for the crosshairs, these pictures are old. White in old photographs leeches over black. Notice how the crosshairs are always behind white objects? Aha!
All in all, the special used faulty science. For example the shadows. I remember while I was watching, I think it was the second photograph, I completely disagreed with the angles. The shadows looked straight in the second photo.
-
Well that only means that you're a fool. More of a fool than I thought you were. Next you'll be calling it the Sexbox ::) dumbass
Fox Network airs a show demonstrating that NASA a conspiracy. Your only response is "FOX IS A CONSPIRACY!!!"
Do you realize how dumb that makes you look?
No, I think she was saying that Fox was just trying to get ratings. They dramatized the entire show; it was basically a part entertainment show with a little bit of some interesting things to speculate on.
-
Well that only means that you're a fool. More of a fool than I thought you were. Next you'll be calling it the Sexbox ::) dumbass
Fox Network airs a show demonstrating that NASA to be a conspiracy. Your only response is "FOX IS A CONSPIRACY!!!"
Do you realize how dumb that makes you look?
Please quote to me where I indicated that it was a conspiracy? I said they're skewed.. and a shitty network among other things.
You're telling me you believe everything you see on TV. Do you realize how dumb that makes you look?
-
Well that only means that you're a fool. More of a fool than I thought you were. Next you'll be calling it the Sexbox ::) dumbass
Fox Network airs a show demonstrating that NASA a conspiracy. Your only response is "FOX IS A CONSPIRACY!!!"
Do you realize how dumb that makes you look?
No, I think she was saying that Fox was just trying to get ratings. They dramatized the entire show; it was basically a part entertainment show with a little bit of some interesting things to speculate on.
Exactly! I ... wait, wtf.. she?!
-
Well, like for the crosshairs, these pictures are old. White in old photographs leeches over black. Notice how the crosshairs are always behind white objects? Aha!
Sure, some of the photos can easily be explained away. I don't particularly like the crosshair thing as a proof either. However, we must take all of the evidence against the moon landings we do have and consider whether it's truly reasonable to conclude that all of these discrepancies are a result of optical illusions. It's easy enough to explain away one discrepancy, but why should there be so many discrepancies at all if man had truly landed on the moon?
Not to mention that after these discrepancies are found, NASA goes and edits them out of their pictures. Remember the "C" rock? After that came out NASA went and edited it out of their pictures.
Original:
(http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume10/issue1/images/cull8.jpg)
Closeup:
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/c-rock7.jpg)
NASA edit: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-107-17446.jpg
Why would NASA feel the need to airbrush out discrepancies after they are publicized if they truly have nothing to hide?
-
Omg! That SOO proves its a conspiracy...
-
...That C just looks like an imperfection in the film, especially as it's browner then the surrounding rock.
-
Omg! That SOO proves its a conspiracy...
Unless you can tell me how an English letter of the alphabet got etched into a rock on the moon's surface, I don't see any other possibility than a conspiracy.
On the very same picture there are also two different light sources (http://i31.tinypic.com/29w0dms.jpg).
...That C just looks like an imperfection in the film, especially as it's browner then the surrounding rock.
An imperfection which looks exactly like a letter of the alphabet? Okay, sure, I could see that. Maybe. But why would NASA edit it out of the raw images?
-
...That C just looks like an imperfection in the film, especially as it's browner then the surrounding rock.
An imperfection which looks exactly like a letter of the alphabet? Okay, sure, maybe I could see that. But why would NASA edit it out of the raw images?
Omg! That SOO proves its a conspiracy...
Unless you can tell me how an English letter of the alphabet got etched into a rock on the moon's surface, I don't see any other possibility than a conspiracy.
Not to mention, from that very same picture there are two different light sources (http://i31.tinypic.com/29w0dms.jpg).
The c could be anything. it could b e an anomaly on the negative, a string, a hair, dust, an imperfection in the film, cosmic rays, magic, a weather baloon... take your pic. I mean what the fuck do you THINK it means? Why write "C" on a rock? for shits and giggles?
The light sources in that picture are not too far off, and definatly not as far off as you are indicating. There's also the fact that 2 light sources requires... well.. 2 shadows.
And not to mention the fact that pictures don't indicate any kind of proof, according to you.. so why do you keep linking them tom? Hm?
-
An imperfection which looks exactly like a letter of the alphabet? Okay, sure, maybe I could see that. But why would NASA edit it out of the raw images?
There may have been a bit of stuff stuck to the first scan, so they scanned it in again without the weird little thing in the way. Perhaps they just wanted to try and avoid conspiracy theorists start going on about how the mark must be some kind of reference letter, thus 'proving' the moon landing was staged.
-
I was browsing around the internet and found that someone uploaded Fox's moon landing special onto Google Video. Take a look. Some of the expert interviews are interesting.
Summary:
"Fox TV network aired a program called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert. According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it."
Click Here. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484&q=nasa+conspiracy&total=513&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2)
Yes lets believe things that we see on the Fox TV network, the same station that plays the Simpsons and Family Guy, if it's on there it must be true. Second the description you wrote yourself says that this Kaysing guy CLAIMS to have evidence of the hoax. I can CLAIM that I'm Superman buit that doesn't make it true. And think about how serious FOX was about this, they got a guy from the X-FILES to host it, as in someone from a show about bullshit itself. This was just a ratings ploy by FOX, nothing else.
.....14 days.
-
And not to mention the fact that pictures don't indicate any kind of proof, according to you.. so why do you keep linking them tom? Hm?
The letter C stamped on a rock, the multiple light sources. It all seems kind of fishy to me.
In that particular image there's even an artificial division between the lunar landscape and the immediate study area.
Cropped: http://i31.tinypic.com/244a49k.jpg
Does any one else notice the subtle line which bisects the image horizontally? The rocks and shadows all seem to abruptly disappear. It almost appears as if the background is artificial.
-
In that particular image there's even an artificial division between the lunar landscape and the immediate study area.
Cropped: http://i31.tinypic.com/244a49k.jpg
Does any one else notice the subtle line which bisects the image horizontally? The rocks and shadows all seem to abruptly disappear. It almost appears as if the background is artificial.
It looks like the crest of a hill to me...
-
And not to mention the fact that pictures don't indicate any kind of proof, according to you.. so why do you keep linking them tom? Hm?
The letter C stamped on a rock, the multiple light sources. It all seems kind of fishy to me.
In that particular image (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-107-17446.jpg) there's even an artificial division between the lunar landscape and the immediate study area.
Cropped: http://i31.tinypic.com/244a49k.jpg
Does any one else notice the subtle line which bisects the image horizontally? The shadows and rocks all seem to abruptly disappear. It almost appears as if the background is artificial.
Tom.. thats cause he section of ground he is on is raised.. :-\
Look at the left part of the photo, it even LOOKs like a drop off... I'm also not here to prove we did land on the moon. I'm just hoping you use better evidence. There is plenty the fox special didn't cover... and that it got wrong too.
-
If the US moon landing was a fake, then why didn't the Russians fake a moon landing too? After all, their space program is just as fake as ours.
-
Tom.. thats cause he section of ground he is on is raised.. :-\
Suuuure it was.
And I bet NASA astronaut Gus Grissom put that lemon against the module window during the Apollo 1 test run because he really liked lemons.
And I bet that shortly before publishing his 500 page report outing the Apollo program, former NASA safety inspector Thomas Baron and his immediate family decided to commit group suicide together by parking their sedan on a train track.
And lets not forget how former NASA astronaut James Irwin conveniently died of a heart attack right after contacting the media to schedule an interview to personally confess that the Apollo missions were a sham.
It's all a mix of illusions, coincidences, and the Fox TV conspiracy skewing the facts, isn't it?
-
And lets not forget how former NASA astronaut James Irwin conveniently died of a heart attack
Well, it wasn't very convenient for him
-
Tom.. thats cause he section of ground he is on is raised.. :-\
Suuuure it was.
And I bet NASA astronaut Gus Grissom put that lemon against the module window during the Apollo 1 test run because he really liked lemons.
And I bet that shortly before publishing his 500 page report outing the Apollo program, former NASA safety inspector Thomas Baron and his immediate family decided to commit group suicide together by parking their sedan on a train track.
And lets not forget how former NASA astronaut James Irwin conveniently died of a heart attack right after contacting the media to schedule an interview to personally confess that the Apollo missions were a sham.
It's all a mix of illusions, coincidences, and the Fox TV conspiracy skewing the facts, isn't it?
Okay, I'll admit those deaths do look suspicious. But seriously Tom, you have no excuse to ignore the evidence we presented. The website presented earlier has rather good rebuttals of all the issues brought up during the Fox program, and even includes a few easy to perform experiments and provides links to the data sources.
You can argue for the Moon Landing Hoax all you like, but it's really hard to take you seriously when you refuse to accept that the Fox special may have overblown a few things just for some shock ratings.
You believe NASA is entwined in some massive conspiracy to make people think Earth is round and that space travel is impossible. Is it too hard to think that maybe Fox decided to exaggerate some of their findings to boost the ratings for their special?
EDIT: And regarding the horizontal line in the photo, it does look like it's a drop off. You can see on the left side of the full picture that some of the rocks are sunk below the 'line'
-
Tom.. thats cause he section of ground he is on is raised.. :-\
Suuuure it was.
And I bet NASA astronaut Gus Grissom put that lemon against the module window during the Apollo 1 test run because he really liked lemons.
And I bet that shortly before publishing his 500 page report outing the Apollo program, former NASA safety inspector Thomas Baron and his immediate family decided to commit group suicide together by parking their sedan on a train track.
And lets not forget how former NASA astronaut James Irwin conveniently died of a heart attack right after contacting the media to schedule an interview to personally confess that the Apollo missions were a sham.
It's all a mix of illusions, coincidences, and the Fox TV conspiracy skewing the facts, isn't it?
Wow... you're just some crazy crackpot...
-
The C on the rock looks a lot like an eyelash that fell on film while it was copied.
It NASA was going to label a rock, why not put it in readable font, something like:
C
-
If this doesn't convince RE'ers it was fake, nothing will.
-
If this doesn't convince RE'ers it was fake, nothing will.
Nasa went to the moon / didn't go to the moon / Russians got there first / Hubble telescope doesn't exist or whatever
What difference does it make.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Earth is Round.
-
...That C just looks like an imperfection in the film, especially as it's browner then the surrounding rock.
Astronaut's pube alert!
-
The C on the rock looks a lot like an eyelash that fell on film while it was copied.
It NASA was going to label a rock, why not put it in readable font, something like:
I've never seen an eyelash which took the shape of a letter in the English alphabet. Don't you think it's a funny coincidence that this anomaly of an eye lash just happens to be superimposed on a rock, on the moon, and shaped like the letter C. Why can't the eye lash be on the distant lunar landscape, over the astronaut, or over the rover?
-
The C on the rock looks a lot like an eyelash that fell on film while it was copied.
It NASA was going to label a rock, why not put it in readable font, something like:
I've never seen an eyelash which took the shape of a letter in the English alphabet. Don't you think it's a funny coincidence that this anomaly of an eye lash just happens to be superimposed on a rock, on the moon, and shaped like the letter C. Why can't the eye lash be on the distant lunar landscape, over the astronaut, or over the rover?
So you're saying that NOTHING in the universe could possibly ever resemble a C, other than a C? And that somehow eyelashes don't land on parts of camera lenses that might be where rocks are? And that they're somehow attracted to lunar landscapes...?
-
So you're saying that NOTHING in the universe could possibly ever resemble a C, other than a C? And that somehow eyelashes don't land on parts of camera lenses that might be where rocks are? And that they're somehow attracted to lunar landscapes...?
(http://i27.tinypic.com/24zkcp5.jpg)
Well eyelashes aren't shaped like C's for one. They're more like shallow arcs.
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/c-rock7.jpg)
Are you honestly telling me that this is an eye lash? It's clearly not.
Sure, it could be a random anomaly of the film's negative which just happened to look exactly like the letter C and just happened to be superimposed over a rock in the foreground. But what are the chances of that happening? Not to mention, there's still the issue with NASA airbrushing the anomaly out of the raw print right after it was found.
-
Once again, it could have been done during the printing process and not the picture taking process. And once again, it could be anything, not just an eyelash. And once again, why would "C" be written on a rock?
-
Closeup:
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/c-rock7.jpg)
That's a photographic anomaly*: The resolved detail of the "C" is far grated than the resolved detail of the scene. End of story.
* e.g. dust, hairs, scratches, containments...
-
And once again, why would "C" be written on a rock?
Exactly the question one should be asking.
Why would a c be written on a space rock?
-
And once again, why would "C" be written on a rock?
Exactly the question one should be asking.
Why would a c be written on a space rock?
Precisely. This goes to show that its an anomaly on the photo, rather than something written on the rock.
-
And lets not forget how former NASA astronaut James Irwin conveniently died of a heart attack right after contacting the media to schedule an interview to personally confess that the Apollo missions were a sham.
IT'S KIRA! :O
It's all a mix of illusions, coincidences, and the Fox TV conspiracy skewing the facts, isn't it?
I don't see how that is different from Flat Earth.
Oh yeah, no Fox TV conspiracies there.
On the very same picture there are also two different light sources (http://i31.tinypic.com/29w0dms.jpg).
http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/strangeshadows.html (http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/strangeshadows.html)
And why is this topic in FE Debate? Whether we landed on moon or not has nothing to do with FE.
-
Also, the C has its own shadow.
-
Also, the C has its own shadow.
Or it's out of focus, indicating that its something on the development process...
DON'T USE FOX SPECIALS AS EVIDENCE. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A RETARD!
-
Tom.. thats cause he section of ground he is on is raised.. :-\
Suuuure it was.
It's no surprise that you can't understand that the earth is spherical. You can't even recognise a crest when you see it, the sun when you see it (ala the other thread), a work of fiction when you see it (your little book), and you certainly seem incapable of recognising your own hypocrisy.
So now you're saying photographs are okay as evidence, and especially edited photographs? Anyone could have edited out, or in, that little (inconclusive) slightly C-shaped inconsistency... just like that funny little photograph about star movements that you posted a couple of months ago that had been squished up in photoshop.
Maybe they just redeveloped the photo, wanted it free of mistakes so they could blow it up for posters, or just wanted it to be perfect. Any way you slice it, it's not evidence against the moon landing. If it highlights anything, it highlights your trollishness/insanity/willful ignorance.
-
And why is this topic in FE Debate? Whether we landed on moon or not has nothing to do with FE.
FEers say space travel isn't possible, so I guess if they think we lied about going to the moon, why not lie about all space travel in general, and even the shape of the Earth. But your right this has a little more to do with the moon landing than anything else.
.............11 days.
-
Does anyone know whether levee believes men went to the Moon?
I am guessing not, but it is worth asking as I find it interesting that he does not reject all space travel as evidenced by his presentation of photographs of the International Space Station only a few miles from the Sun. He clearly does not believe the International Space Station is exclusively a mock-up set here on Earth (although he evidently does believe a clandestine mock-up set for the ISS does exist because he said the vehicle which was photographed in front of the Sun was unmanned and he stated that the videos of all space shuttle missions after the first two minutes are prerecorded tapes of modified 747's with identical crew quarters going in circles to create temporary weightlessness along with a studio where the "astronauts" hang in front of the cameras by obscured lines).
As to the first point, I can vouch for this technique as having in my posession a 1965 photograph of Mike Collins suspended by a rope inside an airplane fuselage while the airplane flies in a parabola. The same exact photograph was reissued by NASA to the press two years later with the rope and airplane insides all blacked out under the pretense that Collins was pioneering a spacewalk during a Gemini mission. As to actors hanging by ropes, many people have been duped into believing phony photographs (such as with the UMMO UFO incident in Spain in 1967)of UFO's in the sky which professional photographic analysis subsequently proved to have been small models suspended a short distance from the camera.
-
Photos are not a reliable source of evidence in many cases. Older photographs are worth more consideration, especially before the 80s. This is also why looking out one's window is not a reliable source for determining many things, like the decay of the rainforest (even if you live in or near the rainforest), the distance you are from the sun, and the shape of the earth.