Beat: We never went to the moon

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]

any legit-ness to reversed speech?

[/ QUOTE ]

wikipedia:
A quite simple and well published explanation for this phenomenon is, that the human brain desperately and partially successfully tries to make sense out of the noise, as soon as it expects that noise to be a spoken language (just like a hungry snake, that eats a stone, if it misses the bait; or like seeing animals in clouds).

guess not

[context]

Dear OP, I think this link will provide you with everything you need to know. It's about your level I think...

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_la...n_landings.htm

[tiger_hall]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear OP, I think this link will provide you with everything you need to know. It's about your level I think...

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_la...n_landings.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
so this site proves that it was real?

[samsdmf]

I saw something on TV that said moonrock is the most expensive substance on earth- America gave small samples of it to different nations n the 60s, now they go for 100s millions a gram

[Maple Leafs]

[Gonso]

There is a tremendous amount of evidence to support the moon landings, and there always has been. On the flip side, conspiracy theorists (of some VERY dubious qualifications, btw, do a search on Bill Kaysing or Ralph Rene) have just made rediculous, smoke-and-mirrors arguments that depend on gullible people too lazy to do any real research themselves.

THere was a Fox special on this some years back, it was something I refuted for a journalism class. There were 22 or 23 "points" they made (complete with creepy music) to try and suggest the landings were faked, but in the end they were just unsupported speculation, faulty reasoning or scientific evaluation, or just flat out wrong.

Examples:

"There were no stars in the pictures from the solar surface." The surface is super bright seeing as though pure sunlight is coming down on it, if special lenses weren't used the whole picture would be washed out.

"There must be multiple light sources as if in a studio, look how the landscape is lit." The suits and the LEM reflect light also - but they never explained why there aren't multiple shadows.

"You can't pass through the Van Allen belts." This isn't true, as Dr. Van Allen at U of Iowa explained to me personally. Can't beat that for a source. I don't expect a skeptic to take my word for it, and he is dead now I'm sure, but this information is available elsewhere.

"Look how similar the effect is in the movie Capricorn One". This was a movie where they faked footage of a moon landing. It's one of the dumbest arguments though, since the movie was made AFTER the moon landings.

The whole thing went pretty much the same, sloppy speculation and no real evidence. No mention of the fact that we have mirrors still on the surface that we use today or the many other facts. Of course we probably paid the Soviets to go along with it too...

Seriously, I mean if you're taken in by this (or the equally retarded 'There was no Holocaust') argument, you need to hit the library, or go back to school or something. It's not a matter of opinion or personal belief, we're talking about historical fact here. Recent historical fact at that.