Bill Maher heckled by 9/11 conspiracy whackaloonies.

[Mike70]

the moon landings nuts my least favorite bunch of morons on planet earth. 1-the doppler effect on the radio signals between houston and the lunar spacecraft cannot be faked. 2- there were literally thousands of amateur astronomy nuts watching the trans-lunar injection burns (where the orbit of the spacecraft was changed from an earth orbit to a lunar one) with their telescopes 3- the radiation arguement is total garbage. Van Allen himself said on many occasions that the folks trying to use that arguement didn't know what they were talking about or were intentionally mucking facts. 4- of course there were no stars in the sky-it was full DAY. do you see stars in the sky when it is daylight on earth? the sky is black because there is no atomsphere to scatter light. 5- there were two light sources shining on the moon as well- the sun and the huge amounts of light being reflected from the earth to the surface of the moon. 6- the moon is not the earth. 20% gravity and the lack of an atomsphere make things behave very, very differently. 7-why fake a total and complete disaster like apollo 13? 8- armstrong, et al. go silent because it is simply no use trying to talk or reason with conspiracy nuts. 9-the craziest thing said by a lunar conspiracy nut is that the stars would've been in the wrong place if they had been faked. this is totally crazy. the position of the stars/constellations is exactly the same on the moon. as a matter of fact, the constellations look the same and are in pretty much the same position if viewed from ALPHA/BETA CENTAURI which is 4.5 LIGHT YEARS away. again the moons surface was in full daylight and the light of reflected from the earth.

[Yojimbo]

I'm serious! I read the points debunkers made showing the reasons why the landings were 'fake', and then invested the time looking them up. There's not really a single point that the 'debunkers' make that cannot be completely explained. Worse still:- 1) Some actually suggest NASA are guilty of outright murder. 2) They are suggesting some rather brave men (who were involved in those early space flights) are nothing but liars. http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.p...ings_faked.php I still have to cheer everytime I see Buzz Aldin clock Bart Sibrel That clip RULES!! Buzz Aldrin: ALL AMERICAN HERO! Yeah! John Wayne's got nothing on BUZZ!

[capncnut]

1) Taken from an orbiting probe, not the hubble. 2) The resolution of that is probably in the hundreds of metres? Yes and the Hubble isn't exactly billions of miles away from the moon is it?

[MinionZombie]

Yes and the Hubble isn't exactly billions of miles away from the moon is it? It is if you're rubbish at maths.

[Mike70]

a picture of one of the apollo landing sites would prove nothing anyway. the conspiracy nuts would simply claim that was faked as well.

[Neil]

the moon landings nuts my least favorite bunch of morons on planet earth. 1-the doppler effect on the radio signals between houston and the lunar spacecraft cannot be faked. 2- there were literally thousands of amateur astronomy nuts watching the trans-lunar injection burns (where the orbit of the spacecraft was changed from an earth orbit to a lunar one) with their telescopes 3- the radiation arguement is total garbage. Van Allen himself said on many occasions that the folks trying to use that arguement didn't know what they were talking about or were intentionally mucking facts. 4- of course there were no stars in the sky-it was full DAY. do you see stars in the sky when it is daylight on earth? the sky is black because there is no atomsphere to scatter light. 5- there were two light sources shining on the moon as well- the sun and the huge amounts of light being reflected from the earth to the surface of the moon. 6- the moon is not the earth. 20% gravity and the lack of an atomsphere make things behave very, very differently. 7-why fake a total and complete disaster like apollo 13? 8- armstrong, et al. go silent because it is simply no use trying to talk or reason with conspiracy nuts. 9-the craziest thing said by a lunar conspiracy nut is that the stars would've been in the wrong place if they had been faked. this is totally crazy. the position of the stars/constellations is exactly the same on the moon. as a matter of fact, the constellations look the same and are in pretty much the same position if viewed from ALPHA/BETA CENTAURI which is 4.5 LIGHT YEARS away. again the moons surface was in full daylight and the light of reflected from the earth. For a long time, I think the only 'lunar conspiracy theory' I never found an explanantion to was that some of the photos there appeared to be 'fall-off'. ie: The local area around the astronauts are lit up, but further away they is not. It almost appears as if there is a source of light just in the local area. Now the only light source was the sun, so the light across the surface should basically be even... It's all explained though. eg: - http://www.clavius.org/manmoon.html

[MinionZombie]

For a long time, I think the only 'lunar conspiracy theory' I never found an explanantion to was that some of the photos there appeared to be 'fall-off'. ie: The local area around the astronauts are lit up, but further away they is not. It almost appears as if there is a source of light just in the local area. Now the only light source was the sun, so the light across the surface should basically be even... It's all explained though. eg: - http://www.clavius.org/manmoon.html Were there lights on the camera equipment or on the craft itself?

[Purge]

My my, have we gotten off-topic.

[Craig]

I have absolutely no time for any sort of conspiracy theories. Sure there are conspiracies large and small in this world but all the ones people keep on about (9/11, JFK, moon landings etc.) sound like absolute crap. Funny video by the way.

[Neil]

Were there lights on the camera equipment or on the craft itself? Neither... There were no artificial lights...

[Terran]

Fill me in..... Regarding these crazy people who believe the moon landing was fake....do these people address the undeniable soviet robot landing on the moon that occured before the "allegded" manned landing of the US?....(which was one of the primary events that caused the US to "require" a manned mission ["one uping" the competition]..... Additionally if it was fake wouldnt the Soviets of the time be the first to accuse the US of faking it....Where were these radio signals coming from that humans and governments of the world had to orient their devices "upward" to recieve information....(jeeze where to start with these people....I guess they need science lessons all over again to begin to understand why many of these things could not of been faked at the time) Furthermore do they address the physical evidence left on the moon from these manned missions? Some claims can be empirically discredited by three retroreflector arrays left on the Moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15. Today, anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system may bounce laser beams off these devices, verifying deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at historically documented Apollo moon landing sites. Or what about the evidence returned from the moon landings.....the moon rocks brought back.... I mean hell....if its fake it has long ago gotten into the territory that it wouldve been far easier and cheaper to actually land on the moon than continuing the farce....

[Neil]

Fill me in..... Regarding these crazy people who believe the moon landing was fake....do these people address the undeniable soviet robot landing on the moon that occured before the "allegded" manned landing of the US?....(which was one of the primary events that caused the US to "require" a manned mission ["one uping" the competition]..... Additionally if it was fake wouldnt the Soviets of the time be the first to accuse the US of faking it....Where were these radio signals coming from that humans and governments of the world had to orient their devices "upward" to recieve information....(jeeze where to start with these people....I guess they need science lessons all over again to begin to understand why many of these things could not of been faked at the time) Furthermore do they address the physical evidence left on the moon from these manned missions? Or what about the evidence returned from the moon landings.....the moon rocks brought back.... I mean hell....if its fake it has long ago gotten into the territory that it wouldve been far easier and cheaper to actually land on the moon than continuing the farce.... The argument(s) they'll fall back to are only robot missions went to the moon, not manned, and that the pictures of man on the moon are fake... I cannot find a single argument for the lunax hoax theory that holds any water, yet people continue to 'blindly' support it