I may be a dip shy of a full can over here because I don't get the Lady Hope Story thing.

sock puppets... lol!!!

HB = Hoax Believer, I don't know of an abbreviation for the opposite.

And by the way, a little nitpick, I do not say I "believe" that men landed on the moon. Belief involves taking things on faith (and not just religious belief). We don't need to do that for the moon landings, it is so well supported by the facts that there is no belief involved.

I'm not an expert, but I would say no. Certainly the USSR, the US, and the other nuclear powers had the ability to track such things. Why? They were watching for nuclear missile launches from their enemies during the cold war.

If you click on a user's name you can get to their profile and it gives all kinds of stats for that person. I personally joined in September 2003, so its taken me about 5 years.

I don't know how you get group statistics.

Don't sweat it. I little humor is great and really, I don't think you've crossed any lines. But if you want to have some fun, there is a section just for that.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

k9trek, questions about the forum itself and its users are best posted in the About BAUT forum. Here's a quick free answer though: note that there is a "Join Date" right above where you see the post count.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

She tried to discredit the theory of evolution by claiming that Charles Darwin had recanted on his deathbed. It turns out that she wasn't even there when he died, and even some of the most anti-evolution websites admit that her story was probably fabricated.

So even if suddenly some story appears somewhere that some Apollo technician would, on his deathbed, admit it to be a fraud, such a story should probably not be taken very seriously.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Terms for those who believe it was real (from the top of my head):
PAN - Pro Apollo Nutter
Shill - paid to spread the propaganda
NASA/Government agent - Similar to shill only more official
Sheeple - Contraction of "sheep people", people who think like sheep, going with the masses, not being able to be critical of the authorities in any way (see also Animal Farm)

__________________
Spread the Love!

There's some that have been used that aren't appropriate on this thread.

Now; about those who not only believe it was real, but also understand the facts on why it was real.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Looks like it. From what I remember, the site I saw it at even pointed out some of the equipment left behind, but as nothing more than a shiney pixel-sized dot. But my memory could be wrong ... it oft is.

I haven't seen a photo showing evidence of the landings that would be clear enough to satisfy a CT'er; though for many, no picture would satisfy them because they'd just claim the photo was doctored anyway. *shrug*

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Hi, k9trek. Welcome to the board. A couple of random notes:

4. other countries tracking space movements with no mention of ct

This includes tracking stations in many countries which supported the manned missions, and also those which received telemetry from the ALSEP stations for years (1969-1977).

2. Is it possible for a country to launch a small unmanned mission without the rest of of the world knowing about it? And was it possible back then? (you can see where I am going with this, preempting the ct, that "they" "secretly" launched unmanned missions to place materials on the moon. Or in other words... how small would a module need to be to go undetected?

It's not possible nowadays for someone to make a space launch without the U.S. knowing about it, due to the DSP/SBIRS missile warning system. I don't know the Russians' capability, but I imagine it's similar. Even a small lunar probe requires a fairly substantial launch vehicle. As for "back then", it may have been possible, but not easy.

In any case, to place materials on the Moon to fake the Apollo missions, you need... an Apollo-size program, with Apollo-size launch vehicles. Those who allege that such a "secret" program existed must (a) show evidence for the existence of such a program and (b) show why the real program wouldn't have worked.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Well, agree and disagree. The launch can be detected, but that doesn't mean the payload is what they say it is. Or they can simply not say what it is altogether. There's plenty of "secret" equipment launched into orbit.

But bringing the topic back to secret launches for reasons of a hoax; trying to keep the payload secret requires that every person responsable for designing, building, and running the mission is either tricked into not knowing what they're doing (extreemely difficult), or that all these hundreds and thousands of people involved agree to go along with the ruse. When done for national security reasons, it's hard enough. If attempting to "pull the wool over the eyes" of all of man-kind, many would say that's impossible.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

I've never liked that nitpick.

For one, it really seems to me like it's not a bonafide nitpick so much as trying to redefine the word "belief". In my experience the term is not understood to have any inherent connotations about whether or not the idea in question is true or rationally founded outside of a few science and skepticism-oriented web forums, and even then only a minority of folks seem to care about the distinction. Frankly, to me that's a red flag that indicates the meme was born of ideology rather than academy.

For two, I don't see the use in applying that connotation to the word belief. It's just muddying the waters. If you are trying to say that something is true or false, just say it's true or false and explain why. What's the point of starting a tangent for the purpose of splitting hairs about a word that doesn't really have much of anything to do with whether it's true or false and whose everyday definition leaves very ample room for the possibility of its being applied to the act of holding propositions that are demonstrably true to be correct?

(ETA: For three, if we're going to get pedantic then the fact of the matter is that I do, in fact, rest my belief that humans walked on the moon on an article of faith. I, personally, have no way of actually proving that it isn't the grandest, most well-executed hoax in the history of time. Maybe they filmed those videos using special effects well beyond whatever Hollywood was capable of at the time. Sure, the idea is completely asinine, but I have to concede that it's technically possible. Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, not a formal rule of logic. And since have concluded that that's not the case even though I have no way of proving it isn't, I have in fact performed a tiny little leap of faith. A trivial one, to be sure, but still.)

I remember original television coverage of the
rovers at work. The long, lazy parabolic
curve the lunar soil took from the wheels
was striking visualisation of weak gravity.

However I know someone who is completely
sensible yet wants up to date pictures of
the hardware. So hopefully images from the
new Moon probes might show long shadows of
the landing stages shortly.

Actually it'd be even easier than that to dismiss it. They could just say that NASA launched the equipment after the fact robotically. Footprints would be a bit harder to swallow, but they'd probably say that was somehow faked remotely using a pair of robotic boots, which then re-entered the ascent stage and blasted off to leave no trace behind. Or you could just accept that we really went there like we said we did lol.

I don't particuarly disagree with you, except for a significant, and relevent exception. I often seen HBers latch on to the term - if one of "us" says "we believe men landed on the moon", it makes their "belief" that we didn't an equally valid belief. Our beliefs are backed by data, their's are not.

I have no problems with "belief" having different meanings; many words do. In day-to-day conversation, I use belief all the time. But around the CT forum, I tend not to use it so casually.

And none of that is meant as a criticism of k9trek, I was just making a point.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

That's the real issue. I was thinking of trying to mention that "belief" usually requires a "based on", but really can't put that into a straight thought that doesn't require discussion. At least not in a CT context.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Excellent distinction!d (did I use the word belief?... I don't "believe" so... just kidding)... how should one then phrase this, "I know for a fact that man on the moon is real?" Or to the best of rationale, I believe momit (man on moon is true... not to be confused with... vomit?)

Very recently, just before I came to this site, I had no idea there were ct to the extent much less having a reason to doubt momit, perhaps I was naive... It got me curious then to try to figure out how to prove this actually happened, hence, coming here.

And after getting a full dose of ct and much farther up the knowledge curve, and now I feel even more naive! lol...

But seriously, I have been completely convinced that the moon shots are real (but then, I never doubted it from the naive beginning). So, how much more points and counterpoints can there possibly be... If my knowledge of this is a glass of water, what do you think? Half full or half empty? Barely full or nearly empty? Nearly empty or barely full?

I feel like I shot my ct wad here (I should look more closely at your posts to see if you post in other areas, read more post less) but wonder if you all are mainly interested in ct or more about space/universe in general??? Clearly my glass is empty when it comes to the topic of the universe in general... just to be clear.

If the latter, I see there is an excellent documentary coming up on the History Channel about the universe... if you all watch tv, that is

__________________
Aurora borealis
The icy sky at night
Paddles cut the water
In a long and hurried flight
From the white man to the fields of green
And the homeland we've never seen
(Neil Young)

"Violence is the refuge of the incompetent."
(Salvor Hardin)

yes, I saw that... they appeared to be space pimples on an assteroid... (((rim shot)))

Just had to say that (again).

As far as creation goes... ugh. Why can't the creationists believe (I am gun shy about using the word belief these days) in some evolution on the simple basis that all living things have dna and therefore are all related.

I lean towards Darwinism/big bang theory/whatever... so, to me, creationism is used at the precise moment science is incapable of providing the answer.

And, since there will always be something we don't know or can't explain via science, there will always be room for creation. It's like a ying and yang thing.

__________________
Aurora borealis
The icy sky at night
Paddles cut the water
In a long and hurried flight
From the white man to the fields of green
And the homeland we've never seen
(Neil Young)

"Violence is the refuge of the incompetent."
(Salvor Hardin)

I would tend to say something like, "I accept that men landed on the moon based on the vast supporting evidence." The key point is the evidence. CTs often try to shift to discussions of personal belief and political belief rather than the evidence.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

funny how fuzzy pictures of the moon are obviously fake, but show those same moon landing deniers a fuzzy pic of a blob in the skies above some remote forest somewhere, and it is seen as proof that aliens are real and they are flying in our skies mutilating our women and impregnating our cows.
or was that the other way around?
either way, it comes off as just as silly.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

there is no such thing as absolute proof. anything that can be considered done in space can be reenacted on earth. if you allow me, i will enlighten u as to the truths of modern society!!

Oh, I would be interested. What would the comms and video and audio set up be that would enable the apparent hoax in the desert be to get the signals to the moon and back and make it appear it was real. Take into consideration signal timing and lags and delays, relay turnarounds and which bit of the tracking can see the moon. This has to be tied to the action on the set. To carry out the comms side of it I cannot really see any other way apart from doing it from start to finish. Script from 1 through 99 or however scripts are numbered. They could not film it in parts. This also raises issues of circuit redundancy and getting astronauts from the set to public view pretty darned quickly. Four seater SR71?

Or have I read your post wrong?

k9trek

Have a look at Moonbase Clavius a website dedicated to debunking the moon hoaxers. I think you will be impressed.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Hello Let Me Enlighten U and welcome to the board.

Have a read of the Rules for Posting
You will see that those posting in support of a Conspiracy will be expected to answer questions and supply some kind of evidence and content to support their position.

We will certainly allow you to try and enlighten us to the 'truth'
In fact we would welcome it.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Oh, I'm definitely looking forward to an explanation of how to make a couple of "astro-nots" move as though they're in a one-sixth gravity vacuum for periods of up to 15 minutes.

Peter, well they obviously weren't filmed on the moon, because if you take this bag of quick-crete powder (proxy of lunar regolith), put it in a vaccume [mix in some water and let sit for an hour], you can plainly see that the powder would not take footprints, EVEN IF YOU JUMPED UP AND DOWN ON IT! Yet FOOTPRINTS are EVERYWHERE in the "FILMS!!!".

Just another example of how even the smartest eggheads on the planet CAN STILL MAKE MISTAKES, WHICH ALLOW US TO SEE THE TRUTH BEHIND THE LIE!!!

[/tinfoil hat]

Sorry, it's early. I felt like checking how things were going on the otherside of the fence this morning.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

very easy ted. they set up the signal to be interpreted as coming from space with a delay or time lag. the signal was created to "trick" all recievers of the time into thinking it had traveled a great distance. it's all in the internal computing power of the reciever. if the signal is created a certain way, it can give the appearance of having come from space. this is similar in principle to a home computer being slowed by adware, somewhat.

OK. So far for the time delay in the signal. Now explain how they faked the location of the source of the signals. You know, triangulation, directional receivers, how were these tricked?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

simple. they place a satelite in a geostationary orbit along the precise angle where the astronauts are supposed to be on the moon.

It wasn't a TETR-A satellite was it?

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

no it wasn't. it was a rough blueprint of an nro concept.