Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings....

[colinz]

What Video?

I don't think I've posted any video?

Sorry, I meant the first post of this thread, should have first checked it was posted by someone else.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

RIGHT. Had enough of this bollocks. Jesus Freakin' Christ.

Lunar rover tracks on the surface of the Moon.

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2011/09/apollo_17_landing_site_LRO.jpeg

Landing site of Apollo 16, including the base of the lunar lander still in situ.

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M175179080LRb_thumb.png

No atmosphere on the Moon, ergo no erosion. Easily verifiable evidence. No stars in the pictures? FFS. The Moon is tidally locked to the earth. Therefore it always shows the same face to the Earth. How do we see the full Moon? Bleedin' geometry. At a full Moon, the Sun is directly opposite the face of the Moon that we see. therefore, the Moon is in daylight. A day on the Moon is approximately 28 days, because the Moon rotates on its axis at the same rate as it orbits the Earth (hence the tidal locking and presenting the same face to the Earth all the time - actually, there is libration, so we actually see about 57% of the surface as there is a slight wobble). So, a new Moon is when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, so the "Dark Side" is lit, and the face of the Moon we normally see is in darkness (aka "night time"). So when the Moon's surface is in daylight, you cannot see any stars as the contrast is too great. The Sun is averagely bright, but it is VERY VERY close (am I being too technical here?), and the stars are VERY VERY far away (Father Ted, anyone?).

http://i2.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/moondiagram.png

Can we PLEASE get back to the important stuff, i.e. Derby tomorrow?? Please?

How do you know all of this for sure though?

 

[Igzilla]

How do you know all of this for sure though?

Physics, mainly.

 

[beorhthelm]

Physics, mainly.

you cant come into a discussion about moon landings and cite physics. someone on the internet said it cant be done, some photos prove it, so your physics must be wrong.

 

[pastafarian]

you are all fools

how can you land on the moon when it doesnt even exist?

 

[Megazone]

you cant come into a discussion about moon landings and cite physics. someone on the internet said it cant be done, some photos prove it, so your physics must be wrong.

'The best explanation to the moon is observational error- the moon doesn't exist'- Irwin Shapiro from the Harvard Smithsonian centre of Astrophysics.

'It seems easier to explain the non-existence of the moon than it's exsistence' - NASA scientist Robin Brett.

Do you agree with the above?

 

[RyFish]

This is the best video re faking the moon landings.

 

[symyjym]

you are all fools

how can you land on the moon when it doesnt even exist?

He has certainly tapped into a lucrative market.

 

[beorhthelm]

'The best explanation to the moon is observational error- the moon doesn't exist'- Irwin Shapiro from the Harvard Smithsonian centre of Astrophysics.

'It seems easier to explain the non-existence of the moon than it's exsistence' - NASA scientist Robin Brett.

Do you agree with the above?

i agree that Irwin Shapiro is claimed to have said this, as a sarcastic comment on the confusing data on the moon, though even that is an ancedote (unless you can dig up a direct attribution of the quote). if you want to make this point seriously, you are putting forward the hypthesis that the moon isnt real, ignoring the visual, gravitaional and biological evidence for its presence.

 

[pastafarian]

He has certainly tapped into a lucrative market.

Indeed he has

A fool and his money are soon parted

 

[Megazone]

i agree that Irwin Shapiro is claimed to have said this, as a sarcastic comment on the confusing data on the moon, though even that is an ancedote (unless you can dig up a direct attribution of the quote). if you want to make this point seriously, you are putting forward the hypthesis that the moon isnt real, ignoring the visual, gravitaional and biological evidence for its presence.

I'm not agreeing with what both the Astrophysicist and the NASA scientist are claiming. I'm asking you if you agree with them. So far you've explained Irwin Shapiro hypothesis as 'sarcastic'.

What's your opinion on the NASA scientist Robin Brett view of the moon?

 

[pastafarian]

you are putting forward the hypthesis that the moon isnt real, ignoring the visual, gravitaional and biological evidence for its presence.

i counter your so called "science "with a youtube video (see above)

 

[Kosmonaut]

Snopes to the rescue: http://www.snopes.com/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm not agreeing with what both the Astrophysicist and the NASA scientist are claiming. I'm asking you if you agree with them. So far you've explained Irwin Shapiro hypothesis as 'sarcastic'.

What's your opinion on the NASA scientist Robin Brett view of the moon?

its my opinion you seem to be veering off from "moon landing is fake" to "the moon is fake", digging up mis-quotes that reverberate around the echo chamber of conspiracy land.

 

[Megazone]

its my opinion you seem to be veering off from "moon landing is fake" to "the moon is fake", digging up mis-quotes that reverberate around the echo chamber of conspiracy land.

So Robin Brett (NASA scientist) view on the moon is a conspiracy and Irwin Shapiro from the Harvard Smithsonian centre of Astrophysics was just being sarcastic.

Fair play, you debunked that quick.

 

[Kosmonaut]

So Robin Brett (NASA scientist) view on the moon is a conspiracy and Irwin Shapiro from the Harvard Smithsonian centre of Astrophysics was just being sarcastic.

Fair play, you debunked that quick.

They were likely making a Reductio ad absurdum argument.

 

[Megazone]

They were likely making a Reductio ad absurdum argument.

That makes more sense, thanks. Would still like to know for sure whether that's the case for these rather extreme views of the moon.

It does seem ridiculous.

 

[pastafarian]

What's your opinion on the NASA scientist Robin Brett view of the moon?

you mean where he says 'It seems easier to explain the non-existence of the moon than it's exsistence' - NASA scientist Robin Brett

the bit that is seized upon by the David Icke brigade that think the moon isnt real

It was of course a flippant remark born out of frustration to the number of theories that abounded originally about the age of the moon. Theories that originated after the landings and had scientists initially baffled(but not anymore) all because Robin Brett and people like him were NASA geologists who were part of the first team to physically handle and experiment on actual samples brought back from the moon by Apollo 11

im surprised where ever you get your info doesnt mention this fact

 

[Megazone]

you mean where he says 'It seems easier to explain the non-existence of the moon than it's exsistence' - NASA scientist Robin Brett

the bit that is seized upon by the David Icke brigade that think the moon isnt real

I wouldn't know, It's you who posted the video about the moon being fake. Your evidence I'm afraid.

 

[Green Man]

It makes me wonder what else is hoaxed. Was it just the landings, or other stuff, or maybe nothing is real? Maybe it's all one big scam and everyone is conspiring in one grand illusion?

Course it is. You've seen The Matrix haven't you?