Recommended Posts

Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:

http://grin.hq.nasa....2001-000013.jpg

Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal:

http://history.nasa....1-40-5903HR.jpg

 

God this is stupid.

 

If NASA had edited the image because they faked it and shot it on a studio, why are they hosting the original, undoctored image on their own website?

 

*facepalm*

 

We went to the moon. Buy a telescope and see for yourself. Or have the evil telescope companies permanently painted US flags on to the lenses?

  • Like 1

Really? Why's that. In the 60s we were putting a lot more effort into it than we are now.

 

And regardless, if we did go today it would just be "Given today's technology it's a lot easier to fabricate a hoax."

That is because they know the world at large is watching and they can't do it "again". They weren't ever able to.

I don't see how anyone looking at the expert photographic evidence, the science of the moon 'landings', can seriously believe that Apollo astronauts went to the Moon.

 

Heat and radiation would have destroyed the film.

 

Heat and radiation would have cooked the astronauts.

 

They carried no significant water supply to run the suits 'air conditioning'.

 

The LEM dimensions would not allow astronauts to get in and out.

 

There was no way for the astronauts to 'eject' the leftover suits, equipment, and waste, that they claimed.

 

Micro particles bombarding the Moon would have killed astronauts and damaged the LEM.

 

The extreme brightness of reflected sunlight from the surface would have blinded them.

 

on and on ...

 

 

 

Funny how when you're asked for evidence in backing up your claims you go silent  :rolleyes:

That is because they know the world at large is watching and they can't do it "again". They weren't ever able to.

 

 

 

We have a crappy track record of keeping secrets. The moon landings would have to be a conspiracy that spans multiple countries which at the time of them happening would have included the USSR. For our enemy at the time to not even call us out as faking it, you really have to start questioning those to do make said claims then. 

We have a crappy track record of keeping secrets. The moon landings would have to be a conspiracy that spans multiple countries which at the time of them happening would have included the USSR. For our enemy at the time to not even call us out as faking it, you really have to start questioning those to do make said claims then. 

Doesn't matter. Everyone knows the Illuminati control everything. :laugh:

We have a crappy track record of keeping secrets. The moon landings would have to be a conspiracy that spans multiple countries which at the time of them happening would have included the USSR. For our enemy at the time to not even call us out as faking it, you really have to start questioning those to do make said claims then. 

 

 

This is probably one of the best points (besides, ya know, all of the other evidence). If the USSR had even the slightest hint the Yanks didn't actually land on the moon they would have jumped at the chance to expose and humiliate them in front of the entire world.

 

This conspiracy is by far one of the silliest.

  • Like 2
  • 5 weeks later...

For every nutter that believes it was a hoax there are millions of documents, pictures, resources, first hand accounts, telescopic photographs from earth, and satellite images that proves that they were there.

 

Just like there is "proof" of evolution...

Just like there is "proof" of evolution...

Evolution is a theory, bro.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

 

 

Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

 

 

 

The moon landing is something we witnessed.

 

What are they teaching kids in school these days?

  • Like 2

What are they teaching kids in school these days?

 

 

Mostly junk. :P

 

As for this conspiracy, I've actually known a couple of people who actually believed our moon landing was a hoax. They were very uneducated people overall, so if that is the type that believe this hoax it would be hard for me to believe in it. 

For every nutter that believes it was a hoax there are millions of documents, pictures, resources, first hand accounts, telescopic photographs from earth, and satellite images that proves that they were there.

not to mention rocks, man, rocks!

Yes and Remember Boys and Girls  the world was flat until it was proven beyond a shadow a doubt.

 

The point though that gets me.....  

 

How many people worked at Cape Canaveral During the Launch?? How many people saw the rocket leave earth?? First Hand??  Were they all in the hoax???  I mean by now someone should have blabbed?  

So then where did the rocket take the people??? if not into space..??

 

It is only really those people like the one video said.... born later that believe this.....   

  • Like 1

An excellent way to prove that man landed on the moon is to focus a camera on the moon where we landed and take a picture of the junk we left behind. Now that I think about it, why has no one ever done that? Hmm. 

Amateurs can see shadows at best (I think).

 

Professionals at NASA don't give enough of a flying f*** what conspiracy theorists say to waste the money to do it with their tools.

An excellent way to prove that man landed on the moon is to focus a camera on the moon where we landed and take a picture of the junk we left behind. Now that I think about it, why has no one ever done that? Hmm. 

 

 

http://www.universetoday.com/96480/flags-still-standing-at-several-apollo-landing-sites-on-the-moon/

An excellent way to prove that man landed on the moon is to focus a camera on the moon where we landed and take a picture of the junk we left behind. Now that I think about it, why has no one ever done that? Hmm. 

Why how nice of you to ask.... There are multiple pictures of the landing sites.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Imaging_the_landing_sites

 

http://www.space.com/12796-photos-apollo-moon-landing-sites-lro.html

 

http://gizmodo.com/5837658/new-detailed-images-show-lunar-landing-sites-at-higher-resolution/

An excellent way to prove that man landed on the moon is to focus a camera on the moon where we landed and take a picture of the junk we left behind. Now that I think about it, why has no one ever done that? Hmm. 

Too small to see with even the biggest telescope from Earth, but the stuff has been photographed many times by satellites.

 

http://www.universetoday.com/88692/nasa-releases-closer-looks-at-apollo-landing-sites-from-the-lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter/

 

Edit:  Looks like lots of people jumped on that one.  :laugh:

This goes back to the simple concept of refusal of proof. For example:

 

I go to the store and buy something.

I go home and my wife thinks I made the whole story up as an excuse to go to the library (book addiction)

I pull out the receipt and show the debit card transaction, it's still not enough though.

The time on the receipt is off by one hour, accounting for daylight savings time. Was the time off as the cash register or did I visit an hour before?

The red mark on the shirt from lunch then becomes lipstick. 

Etc, etc, etc...

 

People will believe what they want to believe. 

An excellent way to prove that man landed on the moon is to focus a camera on the moon where we landed and take a picture of the junk we left behind. Now that I think about it, why has no one ever done that? Hmm.

Umm, we have.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!