Obelix Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I'm not convinced, but I would like to be proved wrong about my idea of it being a huge fraud. Where can I do this or view this? In the UK. I am always open to being proved wrong, it's a good thing. I will be a happier man if you prove the moon landings happened. And I mean real proof. I have a scientist friend into astronomy etc with access too some serious hardware, he never mentioned this. Just read a piece about bouncing laser off appollo's reflector. I don't see how it could work. Surely to bounce the laser off appollo's reflector they would need to locate appollo. And if appollo is still on the moon then how did the astronaught's get back to the main ship? That little snippet of information seems to be a fraud, never mind. Ill try again. A corner reflector will send incident radiation straight back at the source. All you have to do is wave a laser at it - at the distance of the moon even a good laser projects a spot a few miles wide due to diffraction and atmospheric blooming. When the laser spot goes over the landing site you get a spike from the reflectors that is measured in the return signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Ah I see, cheers Roots Whatever you do, do NOT visit the website. Here it is in case you get curious jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Why on earth not? Me and you might cough at exactly the same time, would that be coincidence, or an indication that we're both involved in some super-secret plan? If it rains on the same day each year for 5 years - evil plan or coincidence? If you walk out of your house and 10 red cars in a row go past, coincidence or skullduggery? Coincidence is everywhere. We only notice it because we are all in possesion of the most advanced pattern matching machine in known existence - the brain. Our brains don't like randomness, or chance, or coincidence, so it tries to make sense of them by linking things together. It's nothing different to seeing shapes when you close your eyes. Indeed, bizarre coincidences do occur. Look at 7/7. Some people believe that just because Peter Power happened to be running a training exercise, imagining bombs going off at the exact same tube stations, at the exact times as what did occur (or as Peter put it "almost precisely") that this means there was some kind of *internal tyranny involved.* Some people think that just because all the CCTV "failed" 20 mins before they boarded the trains and bus, this means something dodgy is going on. Some people think that just because those three towers collapsed at/or near free fall speed on 9/11, when never before has a steel and concrete framed building collapsed due to heat from fire (as claimed in the official reports) that it means it was further *evidence of a controlled demolition. There were maybe hundreds of strange coincidences on just those two days alone. They obviously happen all the time. Some people are just so gullible. But which? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 A corner reflector will send incident radiation straight back at the source. All you have to do is wave a laser at it - at the distance of the moon even a good laser projects a spot a few miles wide due to diffraction and atmospheric blooming. When the laser spot goes over the landing site you get a spike from the reflectors that is measured in the return signal. I'm not into the moon landing thing. Couldn't give a toss if they did or not. But could a reflector not be landed on an unmanned craft? Does the presence of a reflector prove that man has walked on the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Indeed, bizarre coincidences do occur. Look at 7/7. Some people believe that just because Peter Power happened to be running a training exercise, imagining bombs going off at the exact same tube stations, at the exact times as what did occur (or as Peter put it "almost precisely") that this means there was some kind of *internal tyranny involved.* Those same people like to forget that business run these sort of training schemes all the time. Peter Power has created an entire business based on it. Some people think that just because all the CCTV "failed" 20 mins before they boarded the trains and bus, this means something dodgy is going on. They also like to say it failed, without providing the context that a) Kings Cross was undergoing a major rebuilding project, meaning the entire tube station was on a temporary CCTV system; That by "failed" the system had only stoped cycling between cameras, and quite happily recorded the bombers passing through the station on the camera which was still being recorded; And that all the relevant cameras in the Kings Cross Thameslink station recorded the bombers. Some people think that just because those three towers collapsed at/or near free fall speed on 9/11, when never before has a steel and concrete framed building collapsed due to heat from fire (as claimed in the official reports) that it means it was further *evidence of a controlled demolition. Despite having been proven to not have collapsed at free fall speeds, these people still maintain that they collapsed at free fall speeds. They also like to go on about jet fuel not being able to melt steel, completely ignoring the fact that steel loses it's load bearing ability long before it melts. They also like to ignore the numerous buildings that have collapsed due to fire, including steel framed buildings (which the report was incorrect about). There were maybe hundreds of strange coincidences on just those two days alone. They obviously happen all the time. Some people are just so gullible. But which? It's not gullibility, it's bad research, and bad selection of evidence. If you ignore anything which doesn't fit your expectations, you can prove anything. All of those claims were discussed at length, and debunked, in the 9/11 and 7/7 threads. BTW vR - how's the messiah getting on these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Whatever you do, do NOT visit the website. Here it is in case you get curious jb Ah Maybe a bit too late for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Whatever you do, do NOT visit the website. Here it is in case you get curious jb OUCH-AAARGhhh! My eyes! Wow, that beats the usual conspiracy fans' all-caps frothing and exclamation/question mark overloads! That was a full-on font attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Those same people like to forget that business run these sort of training schemes all the time. Peter Power has created an entire business based on it. They also like to say it failed, without providing the context that a) Kings Cross was undergoing a major rebuilding project, meaning the entire tube station was on a temporary CCTV system; That by "failed" the system had only stoped cycling between cameras, and quite happily recorded the bombers passing through the station on the camera which was still being recorded; And that all the relevant cameras in the Kings Cross Thameslink station recorded the bombers. Despite having been proven to not have collapsed at free fall speeds, these people still maintain that they collapsed at free fall speeds. They also like to go on about jet fuel not being able to melt steel, completely ignoring the fact that steel loses it's load bearing ability long before it melts. They also like to ignore the numerous buildings that have collapsed due to fire, including steel framed buildings (which the report was incorrect about). It's not gullibility, it's bad research, and bad selection of evidence. If you ignore anything which doesn't fit your expectations, you can prove anything. All of those claims were discussed at length, and debunked, in the 9/11 and 7/7 threads. BTW vR - how's the messiah getting on these days? debunked. Not worth discussing here anyway, I'm not allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I'm not into the moon landing thing. Couldn't give a toss if they did or not. But could a reflector not be landed on an unmanned craft? Does the presence of a reflector prove that man has walked on the moon. Well does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 What ever, may be it is too intelectual a topic for SF. yeah id like to go back to talk about tits, booze and emptying ferrets please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.