Prevalence of moon landing conspiracy theories

[One Bad Pig]

I forget which of the astronauts said it, but between the magnitude and complexity of the cover-up that would be needed to fool the public into believing that man landed on the moon versus actually landing man on the moon, the latter would be significantly easier.

It really IS a movie, but Stanley Kubrick insisted in filming on location.

[rogue06]

That is assuming that Nasa hasn't hacked all of the telescopes, or that the moon is even real.

The moon is real. The NSA were on it.

00000000000000ab0.0.jpg
That is unless you think this was photoshopped

[Sparko]

The moon is real. The NSA were on it.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33848[/ATTACH]
That is unless you think this was photoshopped

the NSA isn't real either. you keep telling us that the NSA can't be photographed so that can't be the NSA

[Mountain Man]

And considering that you can use a telescope that you can buy in a store to see the lunar landing sites for yourself...

Can you? I always thought any man-made objects on the moon were too small to be discernible even with the most powerful Earth-based telescope.

[oxmixmudd]

Can you? I always thought any man-made objects on the moon were too small to be discernible even with the most powerful Earth-based telescope.

They are. Much too small to see from earth. But you can see the areas where they landed.

Jim

[rogue06]

the NSA isn't real either. you keep telling us that the NSA can't be photographed so that can't be the NSA

They can only be photographed when they want themselves seen. In this case Kchteek-ti Tikkchi chxxtik'k ("Major Tom") was mugging for the camera.

[rogue06]

Can you? I always thought any man-made objects on the moon were too small to be discernible even with the most powerful Earth-based telescope.

My bad. You are correct. Even Hubble can not spot them -- but the larger telescopes can see the shadows that many of the objects cast at sunset or sunrise.

[Mountain Man]

They are. Much too small to see from earth. But you can see the areas where they landed.

Ah, "lunar landing sites". I read rogues comment as saying that you could use a telescope to see the "lunar lander".

Speaking of landing sites, here's a high resolution image taken from low orbit over the moon showing the Apollo 17 Challenger Descent Stage, and you can even see tracks traveling too and from the lander. Pretty cool!

[Sparko]

My bad. You are correct. Even Hubble can not spot them -- but the larger telescopes can see the shadows that many of the objects cast at sunset or sunrise.

see, rogue is part of the conspiracy!!! He was trying to lie to us about seeing the moon lander! Obviously this is impossible because we never went to the moon! Because the moon doesn't exist.

[lilpixieofterror]

like holocaust denial - the more time between the actual event and the present, the more people there will be that will find merit in denying it's reality. I am surprised it was as many as you say. It's sad really. And I would guess part of it is the anti-science tendency in conservative voters spurred on by the various and sundry pseudo science outlets and general conspiracy paranoia they see embraced by their leaders. E.g. Ken Ham and many evangelicals, Trump and his attitude towards AGW and a whole host of other conspiracy theories.

Jim

Anti science runs both ways Jim. I know many liberals that are anti vaccine and pro abortion.

[Sparko]

Ah, "lunar landing sites". I read rogues comment as saying that you could use a telescope to see the "lunar lander".

Speaking of landing sites, here's a high resolution image taken from low orbit over the moon showing the Apollo 17 Challenger Descent Stage, and you can even see tracks traveling too and from the lander. Pretty cool!

obvious fakery. The Challenger burned up on takeoff and could not even reach the moon!

[oxmixmudd]

Those in glass houses should not throw stones. Let's not pretend that world-view trumping science is limited to the right side of the political spectrum.

It's getting difficult to dialogue with you about anything, Jim; your paranoia regarding Public Enemy #1 is tainting everything you post these days.

The two largest anti science groups i know of are yec, which is almost exclusively evangelical republican and the anti AGW crowd which is also almost exclusively republican. Whatvanti science groups are there that are of similar scope on the liberal side?

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Anti science runs both ways Jim. I know many liberals that are anti vaccine and pro abortion.

Pro abortion is ideological, not anti science. Anti vaxers are e all across the spectrum, though most of the ones i've run into are on the evangelical/republican side.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Pro abortion is ideological, not anti science.

To declare that the unborn are not humans is anti science driven by ideology.

Anti vaxers are e all across the spectrum, though most of the ones i've run into are on the evangelical/republican side.

Never been to California or not there much I take it?

[Mountain Man]

The two largest anti science groups i know of are yec, which is almost exclusively evangelical republican and the anti AGW crowd which is also almost exclusively republican. Whatvanti science groups are there that are of similar scope on the liberal side?

Jim

Yet ironically it's the global warming advocates who are manipulating the data to fit their hypothesis and then whoop and holler about "Settled science!" in order to silence dissent. That's as anti-science as it gets.

As for pro-abortionist, they deny that a zygote is a human lifeform define all evidence. This, too, is anti-science.