• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

New Moon Thread

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
The Professor said:
First off, my apologies to those who were so offended by my misplaced post; I had been reading the older "moon landing conspiracy" thread in the forum, and was actually responding to that. Just got mixed up with two screens open. So much for multitasking.

In any case, regarding the photos, opinions were requested and I have stated mine which I stand by. I have not seen any reason to believe that any of the photos were faked or doctored. I have considered the arguments in an objective way, even temporarily putting aside my own experience with and technical knowledge of photography and image manipulation (pre-Photoshop) but none of the conspiracy theories really hold any water. Sorry, but I just don't see it. I'm still open to be proven wrong, so I will never say never.

Maybe you should have the aforementioned child you speak of try and explain it to me.
LOL.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I lashed out at you, you have to understand that the vast majority of people immediately discredit any idea of fraud associated with the apollo program, without giving the subject any thought whatsoever. That sort of pattern leads to an aggressive stance.

You understand, of course, that it's very easy for absolutely anyone to say this or that theory "doesn't hold water". What I'm interested is the reasoning and rationalization behind these conclusions. When you get down to it, baseless statements don't really mean anything.

If you would like to be involved in the discussion on this thread, for starters you can watch this video:


Afterwards, please give me your opinion on the validity of the issues raised in this video. And please give me the arguments in your own words, from your own rationalizing. Why do these arguments "not hold water"?
 
BrandonD said:
Afterwards, please give me your opinion on the validity of the issues raised in this video. And please give me the arguments in your own words, from your own rationalizing. Why do these arguments "not hold water"?
Click to expand...

I just want to keep this thread near the top of the list so I can find out how many Paracast episodes in a row David can make disparaging comments about this subject.

...While at the same time being ignorant of the actual topic being discussed.
 
BrandonD
"...you have to understand that the vast majority of people immediately discredit any idea of fraud associated with the apollo program, without giving the subject any thought whatsoever. That sort of pattern leads to an aggressive stance."

I agree with this part of your post.There is enough doubt about the Apolllo
program and associated pictures to warrant further investigation and that "...without giving the subject any thought whatsoever. That sort of pattern leads to an aggressive stance."

I have tried to watch your attached video but my PC is not performing well at the moment. As soon as it is i will try it again.
 
you might as well try to convince people that the world is flat. photographic proof isnt even going to convince people. even so called photoshop experts will not give this a second look.



...as soon as your pc performs well? good luck with that! get a mac. lol.
 
pixelsmith said:
you might as well try to convince people that the world is flat. photographic proof isnt even going to convince people. even so called photoshop experts will not give this a second look.



...as soon as your pc performs well? good luck with that! get a mac. lol.
Click to expand...

Well I don't want to convince people, just open their minds up to the possibility that some sort of fraud was perpetrated with regards to the apollo program.

I think the photographic proof is indeed persuasive. Photographic proof in the pre-digital-imagery world of the late 60s is on a very different level than modern day photographic proof, I think.
 
pixelsmith said:
you might as well try to convince people that the world is flat. photographic proof isnt even going to convince people. even so called photoshop experts will not give this a second look.



...as soon as your pc performs well? good luck with that! get a mac. lol.
Click to expand...

What the world isn't flat? ....Crikey yourë a wealth of knowledge!
:eek:
A Mac? Isn't that some kind of Raincoat?...Oh i get it. People who wear raincoats whilst downloading use Macs!!!
:D
 
BrandonD said:
What I'm interested is the reasoning and rationalization behind these conclusions.
Click to expand...

Discussions about the moon landings remind me of discussions on 9/11. To many people (most people?), the events of that day unfolded exactly the way they were told by the US government, and the mass media. We can read on the net how some of those people knew somebody personally who got killed, or how they themselves watched the planes fly into the towers. Consequently, they are totally and utterly convinced that the official story must be true, in its entirety. No evidence to the contrary is going to convince them otherwise - not the legions of emergency workers and journalists who heard and watched bombs go off, not the collapse at free-fall speed and complete disintegration of three skyscrapers within seconds... Nothing. "Reasoning and rationalisation" doesn't come into it. Rather, we are looking at the results of successful brain washing and mind control, on an epic scale. History is rife with similar examples.

The same goes for the moon landings. No matter how many times one points out the innumerous inconsistencies and outright lies in the official record, the idea that significant parts of the missions might have been faked turns out to be psychologically and emotionally too threatening to be taken seriously. Whenever I hear the standard retort that "The moon landings were man's greatest achievement", I know what I am dealing with: A closed mindset that doesn't know how to distinguish between cold, hard facts, or propaganda. The concept of successful moon landings provides an awful lot of people with a considerable feel-good factor. It instils a sense of (sometimes nationalistic) pride, and a sense of belonging to a superior race. Who are we to spoil such sentiments?

It might require the passing of a generation or two, until enough historians and unbiased scientists can muster the courage to look at the Apollo data for what it is.
 
Brandon,

I have watched your attached vid (now that i am not running at dial-up speed) and i agree that valid questions are raised by it.

I have seen the same sort of analysis before, years ago, although i can't remember the details of the program.

It just seems that for every expert that asks pertinent questions about the validity of certain photos, there's another one saying that it's all BS.

I certainly believe there is something strange going on with those pix.
 
I agree--something shady about the Apollo landings.

My biggest concern is the Van Allen belts... and that Van Allen himself revised the depth of the belts down to 64,000 miles from 123,000 miles (from memory--those figures are almost certainly wrong)... and that one of the shuttle missions was reported on CNN to have to descended to a "safe distance" because the radiation was "more dangerous than previously thought".

The photos, etc., spook me too... that they admitted that "some may have been taken in a studio" but certainly not all of them, etc. Too many holes. And, that we got it right on the very first try. Even with the Apollo 1 fire (the door opened the wrong way? come on!) and especially that Apollo 18-20 were canceled at the exact time (1972) the Soviet Union gained the ability to track our movements in space, and not just whether we were sending telemetry transmissions from Goldstone.

Lots of questions. The film, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" is very provocative. It's worth downloading if you haven't seen it.
 
A space agency should erect an extremely large telescope on the dark side of the moon, say 50 ft. in diameter and 200 ft. in length. Surely with so massive a telescopic shaft and base, we finally could peep down a black hole or two, get a good look at the nebula below Orion’s belt. All sorts of fantastic things. No atmosphere to scatter the light from the cosmos and distort an image, the sun often don’t shine there.

Of course, we would have to drop a few nukes on the Gray/Reptilian bases that ET has already put there. It’s our goddamned moon, anyway.
 
Heh... yeah, I remember hearing about a space telescope they were going to put into orbit in one of the five la grange points around "the dark side" of the moon (it's not really dark, it's just that we can't see it from here, of course)... there was some concern that if it needed repair it would be too hard to get to it--not within shuttle distance--which brings up the Van Allen Belt thing again.

But, all things being equal, I absolutely agree. Aside from being "Warned off the moon", I think it would be great to have a moon-based telescope. It would certainly give us a reason to go back there, and about time. One of the spooky, makes-me-wonder questions is, "Why did we all of a sudden stop going, when we had the rest of the season already paid for and in the can?"

What do you think?
 
But, all things being equal, I absolutely agree. Aside from being "Warned off the moon", I think it would be great to have a moon-based telescope. It would certainly give us a reason to go back there, and about time. One of the spooky, makes-me-wonder questions is, "Why did we all of a sudden stop going, when we had the rest of the season already paid for and in the can?"
Click to expand...

I agree.
The reasons i have heard for not going back there i.e: It's costing too much...The vietnam war....We only wanted to beat the Russians there....etc. don't hold water.
It has been thirty years or so since any of those things mattered and still no return.
Only since the Chinese and the Indians have said that they intend going there has there seemed to have been any kind of resurgence of interest of NASA or the US government.
Most people don't seem to trust their governments so why would they believe any of the excuses they give for not returning?
 
The Pair of Cats said:
But, all things being equal, I absolutely agree. Aside from being "Warned off the moon", I think it would be great to have a moon-based telescope. It would certainly give us a reason to go back there, and about time. One of the spooky, makes-me-wonder questions is, "Why did we all of a sudden stop going, when we had the rest of the season already paid for and in the can?"
Click to expand...

I agree.
The reasons i have heard for not going back there i.e: It's costing too much...The vietnam war....We only wanted to beat the Russians there....etc. don't hold water.
It has been thirty years or so since any of those things mattered and still no return.
Only since the Chinese and the Indians have said that they intend going there has there seemed to have been any kind of resurgence of interest of NASA or the US government.
Most people don't seem to trust their governments so why would they believe any of the excuses they give for not returning?
Click to expand...

It would take a known (or admitted :) ) alien presence, a major scientific breakthrough in propulsion systems or some other major event to speed things up.

Or maybe the next president will have other priorities.
 
You would think that going to the moon, which is many times closer, would be easier than taking a long and more dangerous trip to Mars.
Aren't NASA and their associates already working on new propulsion systems?
 
Cool, Gene the master of the forums made a double post!

Moon is easier, but NASA isn't interested in going back. Not as interested as going to Mars. Personally, I think our trips are mostly fueled by vanity/ego. We like placing our flag in holes, or making holes to stick it in.
 
Gene:

I'd submit that the Helium 3 discovered on the moon is a significant enough scientific breakthrough, as an alternate energy resource (hydrogen), source of oxygen and water, to warrant more trips back.

The question is, adjusted for inflation, why is it _so_ much more expensive to go now than it was then? Why would it take 25 years when it only took us 9 to get it right in one try the first time?

And--Pair of Cats--I'm skeptical too--but about everything. I'd like to believe. I'd like to believe that we've been visited, that we went to the moon--but when there are so many questions that, when answered, only open more questions and no answers, we reach a point of diminishing returns.
 
I'd just like to back up Brandon D, since he mentioned the BS about TWC's "Pancake Effect" and solicited opinions--Word, bro.

I know this is no 9/11 Truth forum, but you're dead right. They are counting on us not doing our homework, or our own research and relying on guys from "Popular Mechanics", without knowing that shortly before these guys trotted out their debunking crap, the magazine, which has long been a staple of American journalism, was bought out and all the writers and editors replaced with castoffs from Skeptical Inquirer. Plus, they're hoping people will confuse them with Popular Science--which I didn't.

People with rational minds often won't look too far to try to poke holes in whatever explanation's offered to them. I think more and more people are waking up from that, now, tho. When a government has been caught with its pants down as often and as sociopathically as ours has, it doesn't matter how many times you've been fooled--you just damned don't believe anything they say.

If their lips are moving, they're likely lying.
 
Oh, also--if there's an alien presence on the other side of the moon, and they have told those in the know that they don't want to be bothered (especially if they have a pact or truce or some kind of agreement with them, which is often alleged), wouldn't we respect that, particularly if they were giving us technology, or simply more advanced than we?

Why stir up an alien hornets' nest?

Hehe... that's an interesting image
 
Back
Top