Bill Maher heckled by 9/11 conspiracy whackaloonies.

[Purge]

Was anyone watching his show tonight? A few weeks back, Bill told these headcases to stop trying to get him to support their inane ideas about 9/11 being an inside job and apparently some them decided to get even. A few of them were in the crowd tonight and they started shouting and protesting in the middle of his program, and Bill got so pissed that he went into the crowd to deal with them himself. Thankfully some security guards came out and intervened before things got out of hand. Rather shocking to see that happen live.

CzrUD-5hf1A

[ProfessorChaos]

what a bunch of disrespectful moronic a$$clowns. people who think 9/11 was a conspiracy are about the most paranoid and ignorant lot of a nation dominated by imbeciles.

[MinionZombie]

I still like the South Park take on 9/11 conspiracies.

1) The gubment wanted to keep the conspiracies going, to make them seem more fearful and vastly in control, when in fact they didn't do anything and were actually clumsy idiots.
2) If it was real, it would have been the most complicated and flawlessly executed plan ever created.

:lol:

South Park knocks another episode out of the park. :D

[Yojimbo]

The 911 conspiracy freaks give conspiracy freaks a bad name. Calling them conspiracy freaks insult all who believe in UFOs and the Kennedy/Lincoln connection. Abductees will be insulted!!!

[acealive1]

time and place for everything,and that wasnt the time or place for the comments those hecklers made

[ProfessorChaos]

The 911 conspiracy freaks give conspiracy freaks a bad name. Calling them conspiracy freaks insult all who believe in UFOs and the Kennedy/Lincoln connection. Abductees will be insulted!!!


you know, i totally believe that there are ufo's although i've never seen one....and that kennedy/lincoln connection is something that blows my mind. don't know what to think about that one....sounds to me like a very large set of coincidences, not too sure if that really qualifies as a conspiracy in my book. although i am skeptical of lee harvery oswald as the lone assassin.:shifty:

but yeah, 9/11 conspiracy freaks spend waaaay too much time on the internet....and this is coming from a dork who spends a couple of hours on this site each day.;)

[acealive1]

you know, i totally believe that there are ufo's although i've never seen one....and that kennedy/lincoln connection is something that blows my mind. don't know what to think about that one....sounds to me like a very large set of coincidences, not too sure if that really qualifies as a conspiracy in my book. although i am skeptical of lee harvery oswald as the lone assassin.:shifty:



ever seen the xfiles episode dealing with CGB spender's past?

[ProfessorChaos]

no, never really got into x-files...did i miss anything?

[acealive1]

no, never really got into x-files...did i miss anything?

well apparently he was the shooter and the other guy was the patsy holding a package of "curtain rods" in that library depository. the whole story was VERY believable.

[bassman]

"And cows disagree with me":lol:

I love the way he handled the situation...

[erisi236]

I though the "Moon Landings were fake" crowd were bad, but these 9-11 "truthers" are the bottom of the barrel of stupid.

[darth los]

well apparently he was the shooter and the other guy was the patsy holding a package of "curtain rods" in that library depository. the whole story was VERY believable.

That episode is titled "musings of a cigarrette smoking man". I actually think that the lone gunman were off in reconstructing his past. c.g.b. spender could have blown their brains out with the scope rifle if he felt they actually knew too much about him. They were good theories though. What made me laugh was when c.g.b. said that as long as he's in power the buffalo bills will never win a super bowl.

[acealive1]

That episode is titled "musings of a cigarrette smoking man". I actually think that the lone gunman were off in reconstructing his past. c.g.b. spender could have blown their brains out with the scope rifle if he felt they actually knew too much about him. They were good theories though. What made me laugh was when c.g.b. said that as long as he's in power the buffalo bills will never win a super bowl.



you later find out why he didnt. mulder's his kid. so why kill you kid's friends,right?

[darth los]

you later find out why he didnt. mulder's his kid. so why kill you kid's friends,right?

True. You saw what he did to Geoffrey Spender. Shot him in the face and used him as a lab rat for good measure. Gotta love family.:D

[DubiousComforts]

Oops, misread the first post. I thought it was referencing Bill O'Reilly and not Bill Maher. Never mind. :D

[Neil]

Read the posts on that youtube page, and you'll see plenty of ill-informed idiots more than willing to believe the towers were loaded with explosives to bring them down.

Almost as ill-informed as the luna landing debunkers :rolleyes:

[capncnut]

So what makes you think NASA did land on the moon?

[Neil]

So what makes you think NASA did land on the moon?

My common sense...

[capncnut]

My common sense...
That's no answer whatsoever given the absolute wealth of scientific improbabilities of it actually happening. If you're gonna slag off the debunkers, at least back your words up with something real to go on. :rolleyes:

[bassman]

*in redneck voice* (think George W. Bush)

If NASA didn't go to the moon, then where did all those "space rocks" come from?:shifty:

Seriously, though.....all of the conspiracy theories about the moon landing being fake have been proven wrong to great extent. Especially the thing about the lighting on the moon.:rolleyes:

[capncnut]

Im not actually stating that NASA didn't land on the moon. I'm just getting shirty 'cos I hate it when folks talk crap about other folks for forming their own theories and not falling for common beliefs.

[Lovecraft]

9/11 Conspiracy Nuts have to stop and ask themselves just how smart they believe Bush to be!!! They make him out to be some sort of supervillian on par with Lex Luthor or somebody!! How in the hell could a plot like 9/11 be pulled off without any solid evidence or leaks when EVERYBODY knows Clinton got a hummer in the Oval Office!!

[bassman]

9/11 Conspiracy Nuts have to stop and ask themselves just how smart they believe Bush to be!!! They make him out to be some sort of supervillian on par with Lex Luthor or somebody!! How in the hell could a plot like 9/11 be pulled off without any solid evidence or leaks when EVERYBODY knows Clinton got a hummer in the Oval Office!!

:lol:

Nice first post. You included a superhero villian and "hummer". You have completed the HPotD initiation in one single post.:p

Seriously though, the Clinton/Lewinski thing is a great comparison...

[MinionZombie]

An excellent point, if a blow job in the Oval Office can't be kept secret, then how on would a massively intricate plot involved countless accomplices ever be pulled off?

The South Park episode where they theorised that Bush wanted people to believe it was a conspiracy because it made him look all powerful and super in charge, when in fact it was all a massive balls up and he hadn't controlled anything.

Ug, and the moon landing conspiracy thing is also a pain in my gooch. :lol:

However, I do think the JFK thing was f*cking shady-as. A far simpler issue - shoot a person dead, bosh, done.

Puff of smoke, the magic bullet - all sounds shady as a two dollar whore's chin, mate. :D

...

I'd say in this day and age it'd be harder than all hell to pull of a conspiracy, especially 9/11 size. The immediacy of data transfer, moles, spies, leaks, 24 hour media, practically every member of the public having a camera phone, video camera or whatever when sh*t kicks off...I think it's just way too hard to cover stuff up in the Western World these days.

Places like China though ... woahhhhh *grabs a barge pole* :sneaky: ... I'm not about to be Jack Bauer'd! :eek:

[Neil]

That's no answer whatsoever given the absolute wealth of scientific improbabilities of it actually happening. If you're gonna slag off the debunkers, at least back your words up with something real to go on. :rolleyes:

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.php?dir=articles&article=were_the_moon_landings_faked.php


I still have to cheer everytime I see Buzz Aldin clock Bart Sibrel :)

mQKxAqpjroo

[AcesandEights]

That's a great clip, Neil. I do think conspiracy theorists invest too much of themselves in their search for truth and that can lead to zealotry.

I do, however, believe that there are things that we are not being told about 9/11 and the government ,as always, is being extremely shady about it. Also, most of the skeptical debunking that gets done are more about the myths of what people think 9/11 conspiracy theorists are claiming or the outright crazysh1t people pull together, as opposed to a lot of the more erudite unanswered questions posited.

[MinionZombie]

I always like the "you know, sometimes sh*t just happens" mode of thinking. Not everything is explainable and some things I guess are top secret and just can't be said for whatever reason.

As for the Buzz clip - good on ya Buzz, lamp that numpty! :cool::)

[DubiousComforts]

Read the posts on that youtube page, and you'll see plenty of ill-informed idiots more than willing to believe the towers were loaded with explosives to bring them down.

Almost as ill-informed as the luna landing debunkers :rolleyes:
Surely it's not paranoid, however, to acknowledge that disinformation tactics are also being employed -- i.e. spread a deliberately bogus conspiracy theory so that people will point to any and all questioning of the official story as "conspiracy theory lunacy."

It's a classic case of shoot the messenger, and obviously it has worked with many people.

[SymphonicX]

All I can say is, well....conspiracy theorists are generally very cynical and paranoid about things....and that's no way to be...

But then the US government gives people a lot to be cynical and paranoid about...so why blame them for having these ideas? Its not like the government in either the UK or US is exactly noble and trustworthy.

[capncnut]

1) Some actually suggest NASA are guilty of outright murder.
Gus Grissom, blah, blah. That's not what I mean.


2) They are suggesting some rather brave men (who were involved in those early space flights) are nothing but liars.
Still don't change the fact that the footage is as dodgy as f**k and that there are many well presented arguments. Hell, they still haven't managed to capture a post-landing pic of any of the abandoned lunar buggies be it Hubble or some other telescopic. I'm not saying that I don't believe that NASA went to the moon but I sure as s**t don't believe what's said in the news.

Same with 9/11, again I'm not waving the conspiracy flag but a simple fire would not have demolished WTC7 to rubble. It simply isn't possible.

Edit: Oh and Bill Maher is a smug little c**t. :D

[SoCalLoco]

I don't trust the government a damned bit whether it's about 9/11, the Jonestown massacre, the assassinations of JFK, RFK or MLK Jr., or the moon landing.

The fact of the matter is, our elections are rigged, our media is controlled by the state department, the executive and legislative branch are controlled by K-street lobbyists, who in turn, take marching orders from the federal reserve and multi-national corporate entities, and the supreme court are compromised partisan appointees.

But as for the 9/11 and 7/7 bombings, I don't buy the "official" story whatsoever, just like I don't buy the propaganda about the IRA bombings in London during the 80s.

The sad truth is, Hitler burned down his own Reichstag and blamed it on the communists, and secured power with the enabling act (similar to Bush's patriot act).

The sad truth is, the germans put an ad in the New York times warning the United States from shipping arms to Great Britain because it went against neutrality laws. The Lusitania went ahead and shipped arms anyway and was destroyed by germans vessels. Woodrow Wilson knew the American people wanted neutrality and sacrificed hundreds of American lives just for justification to enter World War I.

Two weeks before the "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor, the admiral of the Pacific fleet warned Roosevelt that the Japanese fleet was approaching Hawaii and that military intelligence cracked and decyphered Japanese communications and determined that an attack on Hawaii was on the way. Roosevelt basically ordered a stand down and allowed the pacific fleet to be destroyed. Once again, to get isolationist Americans to sign off on another war, this time WWII.

Then you have Operation: Northwoods, secretary McNamara's top secret memo about CIA operatives highjacking American planes and flying them into buildings, and other acts of domestic terrorism, so the Kennedy administration could blame it on Fidel Castro and Cuba, thus securing the way for an all out assault on Cuba.

Then you have the hundreds of blacks the CIA infected with Syphilis in a cold war experiment on biological agents to be used in warfare. Of course, you also have MK-Ultra and the "LCD in your coffee" programs in which former Nazi scientists (given immunity by Truman) gave civilian volunteers, mental patients, prisoners and servicemen pyschotropic drugs and used various forms of behaviorial modification, suggestive thought and mind control on them.

That's just a few things governments have done to their own people in order to progress the agenda of the military, prison and corporate industrial complex.

If you don't think your government is capable (and more than willing) to slaughter its own people (say three thousand) to advance the agenda of the criminal elite (the people who actually run the show) then you really are naive.

Some people just happily swallow the crap that the government tries to spoon feed them. I guess that old saying is true, "Never underestimate the power of denial."

[capncnut]

There is so much I could quote from the factual statement above it's untrue but it all comes down to this...

...TV is a bunch of horses**t. Believe.


Ill-informed? :lol:

[Neil]

Still don't change the fact that the footage is as dodgy as f**k and that there are many well presented arguments. Hell, they still haven't managed to capture a post-landing pic of any of the abandoned lunar buggies be it Hubble or some other telescopic.

Out of interest, what are the 'well presented arguments'?

As for a picture of the post-landing site, unfortunately even the hubble can only resolve details down to something like 60 meters on the moon, so finding a lander or buggie (at the moment) is not possible.

[SymphonicX]

the well presented arguments for moon landing conspiracy boils down to the way the flag is flowing in the breeze....yeah...a breeze in space!

Hmm....also they reckon its slowed down footage to make them appear as though there's no gravity, but they tried to recreate it and it didn't look remotely similar...

interesting theories though. I think what's more prevalent out of all this is the pentagon attack, that doesn't add up at all.

[Neil]

the well presented arguments for moon landing conspiracy boils down to the way the flag is flowing in the breeze....yeah...a breeze in space!

Look one page down here - http://www.def-logic.com/articles/lunarlanding.html

[SymphonicX]

makes sense...

I dunno...I think they'd be a bit stupid to fake it really... mins you I've very rarely seen displays of intelligence.

Ahh whatever, I'm indifferent, did we go to the moon? did America fake it? did anyone really give a **** then or now? nahhhhh....

back to solving world hunger....

[DubiousComforts]

Look one page down here - http://www.def-logic.com/articles/lunarlanding.html

This is a poor argument:

"Imagine the difficulty in fabricating the Lunar missions of the 1960's and then trying to keep the truth a secret. There were thousands of people involved in the missions and millions watched the events live on television. How could so many people be taken in? How could NASA ensure the silence of all those involved? Surely someone would have leaked the secret. It would only take one disgruntled NASA employee to go to the press and the whole thing would have been exposed."

It's a logical fallacy to assume that if there was a cover-up, everyone involved in the mission would have been in on it. This presupposes to know exactly how conspiracies work, and that all conspiracies must work in exactly the same way--i.e. everyone involved must be in on the secret.

For reference, where is the scientific data that demonstrates how a conspiracy works? It probably doesn't exist because we're typically led to believe that there are no conspiracies, only conspiracy theorists.

By the same token, it's also a weak argument to assume that a single person going to the press would have exposed a hoax. How many examples can you find of wrong-doing being exposed by a single whistle-blower? In reality, that person would have been labeled a "conspiracy theory looney."

"It is quite revealing that conspiracy theorists never take an unbiased approach in presenting their theories. They never consider alternatives or entertain objections to their claims. They speak in an authoritative fashion and present their views as accepted scientific research. But as rational human beings, we should not let ourselves be convinced so easily."

This is brilliant: a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theorists! It's us "rational human beings" vs. them, those who simply must be irrational by comparison.

[SymphonicX]

But consider this: in every interview that neil armstrong has given, iif the question about the moon landings being faked comes up, he simply goes silent and refuses to give an answer...

i'm neither here nor there though, I don't give a **** if they landed on the moon or not...who cares?!!?

[Neil]

Ahh whatever, I'm indifferent, did we go to the moon? did America fake it? did anyone really give a **** then or now? nahhhhh....

Bit of a sad reflection of todays mentality almost...


Did 'we' do it? Yes! Of course we did...

Did it matter? Yes! It was a perfect example of humanity doing what's its done from its first foot steps millions of years ago in Africa somewhere... Explore! As a race we can be a couch potato, or get up and actually do something... Let's see more of the latter!


This is a poor argument:

"Imagine the difficulty in fabricating the Lunar missions of the 1960's and then trying to keep the truth a secret. There were thousands of people involved in the missions and millions watched the events live on television. How could so many people be taken in? How could NASA ensure the silence of all those involved? Surely someone would have leaked the secret. It would only take one disgruntled NASA employee to go to the press and the whole thing would have been exposed."

It's a logical fallacy to assume that if there was a cover-up, everyone involved in the mission would have been in on it. This presupposes to know exactly how conspiracies work, and that all conspiracies must work in exactly the same way--i.e. everyone involved must be in on the secret.

For reference, where is the scientific data that demonstrates how a conspiracy works? It probably doesn't exist because we're typically led to believe that there are no conspiracies, only conspiracy theorists.

By the same token, it's also a weak argument to assume that a single person going to the press would have exposed a hoax. How many examples can you find of wrong-doing being exposed by a single whistle-blower? In reality, that person would have been labeled a "conspiracy theory looney."

"It is quite revealing that conspiracy theorists never take an unbiased approach in presenting their theories. They never consider alternatives or entertain objections to their claims. They speak in an authoritative fashion and present their views as accepted scientific research. But as rational human beings, we should not let ourselves be convinced so easily."

This is brilliant: a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theorists! It's us "rational human beings" vs. them, those who simply must be irrational by comparison.

The piece you quote of course is the 'icing on the cake', given after many issues, questions and other ill-thought-out facts have already been examine and explained.

There is not one thing to suggest man did not land on the moon... As always, point out anything that does...

[DjfunkmasterG]

But consider this: in every interview that neil armstrong has given, iif the question about the moon landings being faked comes up, he simply goes silent and refuses to give an answer...

i'm neither here nor there though, I don't give a **** if they landed on the moon or not...who cares?!!?

Can you blame him for being quiet? I would not even respond to the question considering how many times it has been asked and answered throughout the years.

[SymphonicX]

Ok it may have sounded cynical....but what I'm getting at really is that there are many, many other places for man to explore than space. Like whhhhhhat? I hear you cry...

Like inner space,....namely the space between the couch potato's ears!!! I think we as a species are wholly unevovled, we're a travesty of spiiritless zombies (haha)....I think, personally, that the void between our souls and our physical beings (using the word soul purely as adescriptive term for the potential of our species and in no religious sense) is so great that had we spent more time, like the buddhists, taoists etc, exploring the potential of our great civilisation to make a utopian world where every man is craeted equal, we'd live in a much better world...

IN short, I'm saying - sort the **** out in our own back gardens then explore the depths of space....eliminate dictatorships, eliminate poverty, inequality, discrimination,...instill respect, appreciation of the beauty of this planet, harmony with the creation that we are so lucky to experience....

No cynicism there, actually ti could be called over bearing hippie idealogy....yes we can achieve so much on the technological and art front...but we could achieve SO much more by exploring and conquering inner space.

*hippie Trev shuts up*


Can you blame him for being quiet? I would not even respond to the question considering how many times it has been asked and answered throughout the years.
apparently its never been answered - I'm speculating BTW - I am not a conspiracy nut neither am I the opposite - open mind all the way!

[capncnut]

I am not a conspiracy nut neither am I the opposite - open mind all the way!
Exactly. I prefer to look at alternate theories and opinions because the official ones are genrally crap.


As for a picture of the post-landing site, unfortunately even the hubble can only resolve details down to something like 60 meters on the moon, so finding a lander or buggie (at the moment) is not possible.
Yes but Mars has a satellite in it's orbit which has taken a long distance shot of the rover from space. I'm under the impression that the Hubble is twice as powerful.


interesting theories though. I think what's more prevalent out of all this is the pentagon attack, that doesn't add up at all.
I know, that's got Cruise missile written all over it.

[Neil]

Yes but Mars has a satellite in it's orbit which has taken a long distance shot of the rover from space. I'm under the impression that the Hubble is twice as powerful.

Can't comment on that, but the hubble can only resolve down to something like 60 meters for something 1/4 million miles away...

[capncnut]

Can't comment on that, but the hubble can only resolve down to something like 60 meters for something 1/4 million miles away...
Click this (http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/nov05/titan-fig1.jpg) Neil. That is the landing site of the Huygens probe on Titan, which (I'm sure you know) is one of Saturn's moons. And NASA can't take such images of our moon?

[Neil]

Click this (http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/nov05/titan-fig1.jpg) Neil. That is the landing site of the Huygens probe on Titan, which (I'm sure you know) is one of Saturn's moons. And NASA can't take such images of our moon?

1) Taken from an orbiting probe, not the hubble.
2) The resolution of that is probably in the hundreds of metres?

[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.php?dir=articles&article=were_the_moon_landings_faked.php


I still have to cheer everytime I see Buzz Aldin clock Bart Sibrel :)

mQKxAqpjroo

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. :p

[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. :lol::clown:

[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 :clown: