5 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Really don't mind if you sit this one out.
My words but a whisper your deafness a SHOUT.
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
Your sperm's in the gutter your love's in the sink.
So you ride yourselves over the fields and
You make all your animal deals and
Your wise men don't know how it feels
To be thick as a brick.

I did have the pleasure of hearing it live.

Living in your head rent-free…

I stopped reading at "your sperm", thanks nonetheless for your input.

May I suggest typing "How do I stop fixating on someone" in Gemini?

It's dead. Give it a rest.

8 minutes ago, Woke to Sounds said:

Just watch some NASA debunking videos. Laughable with photoshopping, CGI and bad actornauts.

The India 'moon landing' was a joke. Atari graphics.

Much of 'space' footage is filmed in underwater pools and then green screened.

Space has always been a hoax.

Without it you won't believe in falling rocks, dinosaurs and the incoming alien invasion (...soon...)

The cognitive dissonance is too much for most.

Indeed, the quality is so laughably appalling that the gist of the issue obviously lies elsewhere. Some ideas are so deeply ingrained that removing them is harder than freeing Excalibur from its stone… and rationality is clearly not at the forefront of the process. This issue is about belief and belief only.

I had posted this in another thread, but it rightly belongs here. Insights are very welcome.

This is a photograph by astronaut Harrison Schmitt, which he purportedly took on the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. This photograph is problematic, because several shadow projections are clearly visible: Schmitt's and those of the rocks on either side, at perpendicular angles, indicating that there are several sources of light. What is the explanation for this?

6 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Leaving science deniers unchallenged is a big mistake.

I totally accept the science. Like the science that only 11 percent of covid deaths were to people under 65 years of age.

4 minutes ago, blaze master said:

I totally accept the science. Like the science that only 11 percent of covid deaths were to people under 65 years of age.

Or the science that says masks don't work, as confirmed by Fauci before he was asked to change the messaging.

Fauci Said Masks 'Not Really Effective in Keeping Out Virus,' Email Reveals
Dr. Anthony Fauci wrote in February 2020 that store-bought face masks would not be very effective at protecting against the COVID-19 pandemic and advised a traveler not to wear one.

https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-masks-not-really-effective-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals-1596703

On the point that "too many people would have to be in on it": in reality, only a tiny group of people would actually need to be in the know, and everything else is just compartmentalisation of tasks and consistent messaging.

NASA chief photographer Richard Underwood taught the Apollo 11 crew to manipulate the special camera, designed to be used with astronaut gloves on the Moon. He trained them for weeks. Now, is he "in on the conspiracy"? Was he coerced/corrupted to keep his mouth shut all his life, with the risks it entails? Or did he really carry out this training, amidst all the hype, and then was fed the same story everyone else was fed, believing it unquestionably and free to tell the story of his lifetime achievement for the rest of his existence?

Now apply this principle to all NASA employees.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

On the point that "too many people would have to be in on it":

NASA chief photographer Richard Underwood taught the Apollo 11 crew to manipulate the special camera, designed to be used with astronaut gloves on the Moon. He trained them for weeks. Now, is he "in on the conspiracy"? Was he coerced/corrupted to keep his mouth shut all his life, with the risks it entails? Or did he really carry out this training, amidst all the hype, and then was fed the same story everyone else was fed, believing it unquestionably and free to tell the story of his lifetime achievement for the rest of his existence?

Now apply this principle to all NASA employees.

Manhattan project was kept secret by hundreds if not thousands of people.

This 50-minute documentary raises several valid questions, but does not conclude it was faked and lets proponents of both sides of the debate make their points.

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took their first steps on the moon in July 1969 the world was suddenly split into two categories – those who believe the Apollo 11 landings, and those who don’t. We’ll investigate both sides of this debate – as 10-15% of the American public still believe the moon landings were fake in one way or another. This film recreates the scene out in the desert and tests the most popular, and persistent conspiracy theories!

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Of course it is irrelevant to quote these statements as proof the Moon landings didn't happen… but they can validly be added to a series of unusual and/or troubling elements.

Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins all retired from NASA shortly after the Apollo 11 mission, living away from the limelight. Aldrin struggled with depression and alcoholism his entire life.

It is also notable that they were unusually and uncharastically somber in their post-mission press conference. What was wrong with them? They had just accomplished the greatest feat of mankind's history, hadn't they? Why the unease?

Again, this doesn't prove anything, but it is not the aftermath one would expect, and it certainly doesn't do anything to change the minds of those who are already sceptical of Apollo's authenticity.

In an environment that can be extremely stressful and require extreme concentration of lengths of time, combined with extreme fatigue - it can take time to decompress.

I work in a stressful environment requiring concentration for length of time, and its fatiguing.... I need at least 3 days to decompress...

On other projects its taken a week or so.

Coming out of a two week solitary quarantine - I was not elated, excited, exuberant to see my family - I was quiet, comfortable, just relieved - sombre even.

I understand what you mean - but I imagine like guys coming back home from a military posting where stress levels are well beyond the norm - partying, joking and being happy perhaps not the reaction we see.

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In an environment that can be extremely stressful and require extreme concentration of lengths of time, combined with extreme fatigue - it can take time to decompress.

I work in a stressful environment requiring concentration for length of time, and its fatiguing.... I need at least 3 days to decompress...

On other projects its taken a week or so.

Coming out of a two week solitary quarantine - I was not elated, excited, exuberant to see my family - I was quiet, comfortable, just relieved - sombre even.

I understand what you mean - but I imagine like guys coming back home from a military posting where stress levels are well beyond the norm - partying, joking and being happy perhaps not the reaction we see.

This is a logical and sensible explanation, one I pondered over myself, and given the unique nature of their purported expedition, one can validly claim that the various phenomenons they were subjected to could have all sorts of effects.

And yet still, their body language is closer to unease and uncomfortable shifting than exhaustion or decompression, bearing in mind they had spent 21 days in quarantine beforehand…

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

This is a logical and sensible explanation, one I pondered over myself, and given the unique nature of their purported expedition, one can validly claim that the various phenomenons they were subjected to could have all sorts of effects.

And yet still, their body language is closer to unease and uncomfortable shifting than exhaustion or decompression, bearing in mind they had spent 21 days in quarantine beforehand…

They hadn't 'only spend 21 days in quarantine'... they'd had an 8-year grind

- Astronauts waited 6–8 years from selection to flight

- Internal NASA thinking in the 1960s put success at ~50–60%

- Failure meant death, likely live on global television

- No abort options once committed to lunar descent

- Experimental aircraft and simulators failed regularly

- Neil Armstrong ejected from a lunar trainer <2 seconds before impact

- Astronauts routinely blacked out in high-G training

- Apollo 1 (1967) killed 3 astronauts during a ground test

- Fire spread in ~17 seconds - no escape possible

- Everyone flying Apollo knew it could happen to them next

- Final training phase: 8–10 hrs/day, 6 days/week for 6 months

- Endless failure simulations designed to induce panic

- Mistakes were treated as potential death rehearsals

- Astronaut divorce rate: ~33% / US national rate at the time: ~10%

- Astronauts wrote farewell letters before flights

- Life insurance was often unavailable - Crews pre-signed autographs families could sell if they died

- Apollo 11 landed with ~20 seconds of fuel

- Multiple computer overload alarms during descent

- A presidential death speech was prepared in advance

It would take a while to 'be human' again after all that.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

They hadn't 'only spend 21 days in quarantine'... they'd had an 8-year grind

- Astronauts waited 6–8 years from selection to flight

- Internal NASA thinking in the 1960s put success at ~50–60%

- Failure meant death, likely live on global television

- No abort options once committed to lunar descent

- Experimental aircraft and simulators failed regularly

- Neil Armstrong ejected from a lunar trainer <2 seconds before impact

- Astronauts routinely blacked out in high-G training

- Apollo 1 (1967) killed 3 astronauts during a ground test

- Fire spread in ~17 seconds - no escape possible

- Everyone flying Apollo knew it could happen to them next

- Final training phase: 8–10 hrs/day, 6 days/week for 6 months

- Endless failure simulations designed to induce panic

- Mistakes were treated as potential death rehearsals

- Astronaut divorce rate: ~33% / US national rate at the time: ~10%

- Astronauts wrote farewell letters before flights

- Life insurance was often unavailable - Crews pre-signed autographs families could sell if they died

- Apollo 11 landed with ~20 seconds of fuel

- Multiple computer overload alarms during descent

- A presidential death speech was prepared in advance

It would take a while to 'be human' again after all that.

Indeed, this is an impressive list of constraints and predicaments… A conspiracy theorist might even think that pulling off such a feat is virtually impossible!

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Indeed, this is an impressive list of constraints and predicaments… A conspiracy theorist might even think that pulling off such a feat is virtually impossible!

Look at the guys who went to Vietnam - how many cam back healthy.

I have friends who were in the military - some of them are different now, others still just the lads they were.

Looking at it from another perspective - its an indicator of the reality of the mission...

In prolonged high-risk environments, the body does not stand down when danger technically ends but only when routines return and nothing more is demanded, which is why achievement, milestones, or celebration cannot override stress physiology, and why the true cost of sustained vigilance often reveals itself only afterwards, during the slow process of recovery.

55 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Look at the guys who went to Vietnam - how many cam back healthy.

I have friends who were in the military - some of them are different now, others still just the lads they were.

Looking at it from another perspective - its an indicator of the reality of the mission...

In prolonged high-risk environments, the body does not stand down when danger technically ends but only when routines return and nothing more is demanded, which is why achievement, milestones, or celebration cannot override stress physiology, and why the true cost of sustained vigilance often reveals itself only afterwards, during the slow process of recovery.

Their post-mission demeanour and struggles are certainly compatible with PTSD. They are also compatible with impostor syndrome.

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Indeed, this is an impressive list of constraints and predicaments… A conspiracy theorist might even think that pulling off such a feat is virtually impossible!

Coming at the 'Moon Landings' from a different angle.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/probability-theory-debunks-the-moon-landing-ferdinand-santos-jerm-warfare

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

This is a photograph by astronaut Harrison Schmitt, which he purportedly took on the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. This photograph is problematic, because several shadow projections are clearly visible: Schmitt's and those of the rocks on either side, at perpendicular angles, indicating that there are several sources of light. What is the explanation for this?

I'll take a stab.

No such things as astronauts. Just astro-naughts or actornauts. (same thing really).

Second, you can't land on a light in the sky.

3rd, every launch's trajectory is an arc - and the camera always cuts away on cue. And no camera films the entire thing from the nose POV. Wonder why?

Finally, movie sets have many different light sources from different angles.

OK.

On 1/19/2026 at 12:03 AM, richard_smith237 said:

Anti-vaxxer..... Flat-earther.... Moon-landing denier.....

The trifecta... the holy trinity of intellectual failure.... You've ticked the boxes perfectly... 🤣

Ok that's three. Would Paul is dead complete your Mount Rushmore of conspiracies?

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

This 50-minute documentary raises several valid questions, but does not conclude it was faked and lets proponents of both sides of the debate make their points.

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took their first steps on the moon in July 1969 the world was suddenly split into two categories – those who believe the Apollo 11 landings, and those who don’t. We’ll investigate both sides of this debate – as 10-15% of the American public still believe the moon landings were fake in one way or another. This film recreates the scene out in the desert and tests the most popular, and persistent conspiracy theories!

A decent documentary, and similar in tone to many of the so-called balanced “denier versus fact” videos available online.

When each of the denial claims is examined in isolation and addressed with evidence and explanation, common sense prevails - even on more complex points such as radiation exposure, lunar rock radioactivity, and the absence of oxidation.

As for lighting, stars, camera behaviour, the flag, dust dynamics, and items left on the surface, these are all straightforward to explain with a basic understanding of physics and the lunar environment.

The film also makers did not select the strongest sceptical voices. Two of the deniers rely heavily on opinion rather than evidence, clinging to conjecture in place of proof. Questions such as “Why didn’t NASA ask the astronauts if they were okay after passing through the Van Allen belts?” are not evidence - they are simply questions.

2 hours ago, Oliver Holzerfilled said:

On 1/18/2026 at 6:03 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Anti-vaxxer..... Flat-earther.... Moon-landing denier.....

The trifecta... the holy trinity of intellectual failure.... You've ticked the boxes perfectly... 🤣

Ok that's three. Would Paul is dead complete your Mount Rushmore of conspiracies?

Obviously the porcelain throne cover-up should be up there...

... Elvis is clearly alive... he's been spotted at petrol stations...

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Living in your head rent-free…

wow... your weakest reply yet... it's the equivalent of a garbage bound dish rag.

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I stopped reading at "your sperm", thanks nonetheless for your input.

yeah... no curiosity at all... but that lyric is kind of weird even for the era. Ian Anderson aka Jethro Tull... Thick as a Brick

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Obviously the porcelain throne cover-up should be up there...

... Elvis is clearly alive... he's been spotted at petrol stations...

Reminds me there's a decent-looking Jim Morrison one going around. Will check it out.

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

A decent documentary, and similar in tone to many of the so-called balanced “denier versus fact” videos available online.

When each of the denial claims is examined in isolation and addressed with evidence and explanation, common sense prevails - even on more complex points such as radiation exposure, lunar rock radioactivity, and the absence of oxidation.

As for lighting, stars, camera behaviour, the flag, dust dynamics, and items left on the surface, these are all straightforward to explain with a basic understanding of physics and the lunar environment.

The film also makers did not select the strongest sceptical voices. Two of the deniers rely heavily on opinion rather than evidence, clinging to conjecture in place of proof. Questions such as “Why didn’t NASA ask the astronauts if they were okay after passing through the Van Allen belts?” are not evidence - they are simply questions.

It raises valid questions on important issues such as the unsustainable radiation (both for the astronauts and the photographs) and the illogical shadows, among others. There are explanations, the validity of which is open to appreciation. Physics professor Tony Cook, for example, explains how everything makes sense and is normal according to his model… because that is what it is about, really, choosing a model and interpreting everything according to it.

The 'conspiracy' model is far from being irrelevant or stupid (for example, retired civil engineer Trevor Weaver, who worked for the UN, is not an imbecile by any stretch of the imagination and he claims the flag behaves in impossible ways – the 'debunks' which are given by the opposite side are merely alternative explanations.

I think that is the strength of this documentary: you don't end up with a clear feeling one side is more credible than the other.

Worse than click-bait, posting complete non-sense to increase post count, 🤨

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It raises valid questions on important issues such as the unsustainable radiation (both for the astronauts and the photographs) and the illogical shadows, among others. There are explanations, the validity of which is open to appreciation. Physics professor Tony Cook, for example, explains how everything makes sense and is normal according to his model… because that is what it is about, really, choosing a model and interpreting everything according to it.

The 'conspiracy' model is far from being irrelevant or stupid (for example, retired civil engineer Trevor Weaver, who worked for the UN, is not an imbecile by any stretch of the imagination and he claims the flag behaves in impossible ways – the 'debunks' which are given by the opposite side are merely alternative explanations.

I think that is the strength of this documentary: you don't end up with a clear feeling one side is why didn't they end an unmanned flight to the moon, just to see it they could get there. more credible than the other.

I've a question for Buzz. Or any of the others hoaxanoults still alive.

Why didn't they embark on a mission to simulate the future manned flight, with an unmanned one. Perhaps the year before. After all; why risk the lives of 3 fine Americans, and the reputation of the country, with just keeping their fingers crossed.

Hold on a minute! They did! Apollo 01 thru 10. Those missions are not so often mentioned.

1 minute ago, cobra said:

Worse than click-bait, posting complete non-sense to increase post count, 🤨

Post counts!!!??? I post, on this topic, to get likes.

One from you would be most appreciated Sir. In fact, if you would like to get on my Xmas card list for the big event later this year. Run down the topic and give all my posts a thumbs up. Thanking you in advance. 😅

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I've a question for Buzz. Or any of the others hoaxanoults still alive.

Why didn't they embark on a mission to simulate the future manned flight, with an unmanned one. Perhaps the year before. After all; why risk the lives of 3 fine Americans, and the reputation of the country, with just keeping their fingers crossed.

Hold on a minute! They did! Apollo 01 thru 10. Those missions are not so often mentioned.

Adjusted for inflation, the Apollo missions cost over 250 billion dollars. That's a lot of money to prove the supremacy of the US to the world, isn't it? It isn't as if we didn't have our share of problems to solve on firm ground…

In fact, there is an Apollo astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, who shared this view. He became an advocate for redirecting priorities, claiming mankind should focus on its 'inner space' and try rectifying its own environment before striving to 'expand its dominion'…

True those 250 billion could have been better spent, when you think about it, namely to alleviate the famine problems of a large part of the world.

16 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I had posted this in another thread, but it rightly belongs here. Insights are very welcome.

This is a photograph by astronaut Harrison Schmitt, which he purportedly took on the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. This photograph is problematic, because several shadow projections are clearly visible: Schmitt's and those of the rocks on either side, at perpendicular angles, indicating that there are several sources of light. What is the explanation for this?

Its called 'light fall off' - and has been covered extensively in many moon-landing-denier debunking videos...

Ultimately - the lunar module itself was so reflective it acted as a second light source.

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Adjusted for inflation, the Apollo missions cost over 250 billion dollars. That's a lot of money to prove the supremacy of the US to the world, isn't it? It isn't as if we didn't have our share of problems to solve on firm ground…

In fact, there is an Apollo astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, who shared this view. He became an advocate for redirecting priorities, claiming mankind should focus on its 'inner space' and try rectifying its own environment before striving to 'expand its dominion'…

True those 250 billion could have been better spent, when you think about it, namely to alleviate the famine problems of a large part of the world.

Its one quarter of the US yearly Military spend...

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

It raises valid questions on important issues such as the unsustainable radiation (both for the astronauts and the photographs) and the illogical shadows, among others. There are explanations, the validity of which is open to appreciation. Physics professor Tony Cook, for example, explains how everything makes sense and is normal according to his model… because that is what it is about, really, choosing a model and interpreting everything according to it.

The 'conspiracy' model is far from being irrelevant or stupid (for example, retired civil engineer Trevor Weaver, who worked for the UN, is not an imbecile by any stretch of the imagination and he claims the flag behaves in impossible ways – the 'debunks' which are given by the opposite side are merely alternative explanations.

I think that is the strength of this documentary: you don't end up with a clear feeling one side is more credible than the other.

The conspiracy model is trivially easy to debunk. If people are still clinging to the “the flag is moving in the wind” argument, they’re not understanding what they are seeing. And before anyone appeals to authority - I personally know people working at the UN who are astonishingly dim, so that’s hardly a reliable proxy for intelligence.

In my view, the video you presented, Rattle, did make a genuine attempt to show balance and present both sides without overt bias. However, the so-called counter-arguments offered by the conspiracy camp weren’t evidence-based rebuttals at all - they were little more than opinion, guesswork, and a poor grasp of basic science being dressed up as scepticism.

Conspiracy videos and documents often list a long sequence of “issues” back-to-back. When stacked like that, they almost give the impression of an overwhelming body of evidence. But that impression only survives as long as the claims remain bundled together. Once each point is isolated, examined, and properly debunked, it becomes obvious that the conspiracy narrative carries no weight whatsoever.

Each so-called “body of evidence” is isolated and dealt with in the following video. Every individual claim is addressed directly at the corresponding timestamps below.

00:00:00 - INTRO

00:04:40 - APOLLO 17 LIFTOFF FOOTAGE

00:19:05 - WHY DON'T WE SEE STARS

00:25:40 - LUNAR SHADOWS

00:32:00 - CROSSHAIRS BEHIND OBJECTS

00:34:10 - WHY DID THE FLAG WAVE

00:38:00 - ASTRONAUTS ON WIRES

00:47:15 - FOOTPRINTS / PROP ROCKS

00:49:05 - MOON ROCK OR WOOD

00:51:35 - VAN ALLEN BELT RADIATION

01:07:55 - DID NASA FAKE FOOTAGE

01:12:55 - LOST APOLLO 11 TAPES

01:19:30 - LOST SATURN V PLANS

01:23:00 - THE LUNAR LANDER'S THIN SKIN

01:27:50 - LUNAR ROVER DUST

01:29:30 - OTHER PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

01:37:20 - DID ANYONE ELSE TRACK THE MISSIONS

01:40:15 - THE SOVIETS' REACTION TO APOLLO

01:42:10 - ORBITAL MECHANICS OF APOLLO

01:51:15 - DELTA V OF APOLLO

02:04:30 - WHY HAVEN'T WE GONE BACK

02:14:30 - SUMMARY