Internet Hoaxes

(For General Discussion)

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby bogieman » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:09 pm

Have you seen the pictures??

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

I am sorry to say the pictures do lie :shock:
bogieman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:46 pm

Postby chris.ph » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:21 pm

they never went there. there is a set of photos and video taken about 60 miles apart that even the stones match let alone the landscape :roll:
another one is all the backlighting theyve managed to achieve with no lights
yet another is how is there no blast crater under the module coz the dust is soft enough to leave footprints but retrorockets dont blow it away.
as you can probably tell i could go on :)
measuring intelligence by exam results is like measuring digestion by turd length
User avatar
chris.ph
Member
 
Posts: 8588
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:52 am
Location: swansea south wales

Postby bogieman » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:07 pm

What about the fire triangle

There is no oxygen in a vacuum and rocket burners are fire.
bogieman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:46 pm

Postby poohbcarrot » Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:52 pm

Tonyblack wrote:Actually, I used to know a guy who was convinced the Moon landings didn't happen. He had no real reason to believe this apart from what some bloke in a pub told him. When I asked him if he believed that Apollo 13 had really got into trouble, he believed that - so go figure!


Actually some "bloke in the pub" told me about 7 years ago. I had always been 100% convinced before because I had just taken it as gospel that it had happened. I then did my own research and believe there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Tonyblack wrote: It's one of those things where someone says it didn't happen and not matter how much evidence is produced that it did, the disbeliever will come back with "the government made that up" and "the government are covering it up". There's no talking sense into people with closed minds like that. :wink:


So conversely, no matter how much proof there is AGAINST the moon landings, the believer will come back with "the government didn't make it up." There's no talking sense into people with closed minds like that :wink:
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby bogieman » Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:55 am

Have you seen the following

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAcXBT-G ... re=related

Very convincing stuff that virtually proves that they landed on the moon.
bogieman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:46 pm

Postby poohbcarrot » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:19 am

bogieman wrote:Very convincing stuff that virtually proves that they landed on the moon.


Um...er...doesn't it virtually prove that they could have taken the photos in a studio and made it look like the moon? I mean, they took some photos in a STUDIO and it looked like the MOON!

All that video proved was that shadows are not always as you think they should be.

It also proved how easy it would have been to fake the moon photos. If two dudes in a warehouse with a big light and a load of sand could almost replicate the alledged moon photos, what could NASA be capable of?
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby Catch-up » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:45 pm

:shock: Oh dear.

*Slowly backs away from thread*

:wink: :lol:
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6656
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby bogieman » Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:43 pm

Agreed that it could still be such but the point most of the debunkers made were the pictures could not be the result of a single source light. This proves beyond a doubt that a single source light could have made the shadows. This does not prove the moon landings were real or faked but it does prove the people who said it HAD to be faked because of the shadows were wrong.
bogieman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:46 pm

Postby Dotsie » Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:49 pm

Catch-up wrote::shock: Oh dear.

*Slowly backs away from thread*

:wink: :lol:


As a scientist, I think I'll be backing away too!
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby bogieman » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:40 pm

Dotsie wrote:
Catch-up wrote::shock: Oh dear.

*Slowly backs away from thread*

:wink: :lol:


As a scientist, I think I'll be backing away too!

This is cowardliness .
Come back you guys and add words together like reasonable debaters :twisted:
bogieman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:46 pm

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:20 pm

You want reason as well as debate? :shock:

You can fake any kind of pic (static or moving, oils or digital or even holographic) to support whatever you want if you take enough time and energy and in some instances unlimited cash to throw at it.

You can fake light sources and shadows with a hand torch or stadium spotlights should you so wish - maybe hire Paul Daniels if you want a giggle whilst you're doing it or David Blaine if you don't

Eyes can be fooled and brains bedazzled either way - what it boils down to how big a lie (or truth) you want to pass off. OK so there's backlighting and no oxygen to speak of - you can argue that back or forth until the cows come home and a bottle of coke will still spoil the whole effect. Except maybe Armstrong wanted to be the 1st litterbug as well as the 1st to walk there... maybe Coca-cola gave Buzz Aldrin a huge wad to drop a bottle somewhere or other when 'no one was looking' either on earth or up there - they didn't have to drink the damn thing and who cares if it was empty or full or disappeared from the footage seen accidently in WA or Timbuktu come to that.

What you really have to ask yourself is WHY would they need to fake this? Because the nay-sayers have such elaborate proofs to say they never went there that I'm now thinking it would actually have been a whole lot easier to just go there for real and get on with some silly Heath Robinson cine filming and a couple of damn good kleig lights that they somehow patched up to broadcast on TV ?

To be honest I'd say the space programme was worth all the fuss to get teflon and pot noodles invented. And there's other stuff we've got too that might not have been dreamt up as a result of all this sky watching, when, if you believe MiB (and I'm inclined to, believe me 8) ) it's all a game of marbles anyway... :twisted:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10481
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby bogieman » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:00 pm

I am just not keen on being in the sack :lol:

I just like the fact that the conspiracy guys said you cant do that in space and then someone proves you can. I do notice none of them are shouting about all there arguments being debunked.
bogieman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:46 pm

Postby Catch-up » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:14 pm

bogieman wrote:
Dotsie wrote:
Catch-up wrote::shock: Oh dear.

*Slowly backs away from thread*

:wink: :lol:


As a scientist, I think I'll be backing away too!

This is cowardliness .
Come back you guys and add words together like reasonable debaters :twisted:


:lol:

Hmmmm. I can think of neither a debate contribution nor reasonable words. But I do have a question. These days, isn't it pretty easy to tell if a photograph has been faked?
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6656
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby poohbcarrot » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:42 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:To be honest I'd say the space programme was worth all the fuss to get teflon and pot noodles invented.


Not to mention Velcro!
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby Dotsie » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:08 pm

bogieman wrote:This is cowardliness .
Come back you guys and add words together like reasonable debaters :twisted:


:lol:

OK, tell me what these supposed arguments are for a hoax, & I'll debunk away. I'm really too lazy to look it up for myself, cos I think it's all a bit hilarious!
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Broken Drum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests