Attn Seethruart--moon doubter's question

[Manduck]

Originally posted by tracer *
But what happens when one of the pictures taken through this Big Fing Telescope shows a surface feature that looks like a human face? **

That will prove that the moon has been visited by smileys

[GIGObuster]

Smiley visited mars first!

http://www.msss.com/education/happy_face/happy_face.html

[SPOOFE]

Seethruart would dismiss the VLT photos as fake, anyway, when they don’t reveal any evidence of his triangular shuttles or “art in the dirt” or the like.

[Apos]

Well, it looks like I’m the only one who will stand up for the skepticism here, in a sea of blind credulity. Skeptics are often ridiculed with old lies about their criticisms: like saying that most moon skeptics actually believe there should be stars in the moon photos. Almost no serious moon-landing skeptic today makes their case on such easily refuted claims: yet moon-landing defenders respond only to the silliest complaints ever made, never to the REAL damning stuff, which they completely ignore. Even Fox’s excreble documentary looked only at the silly and easily answered questions: totally ignoring the more troubling ones.

The bottom line: there is serious and quite reasonable moon-landing skepticism out there, as opposed to new-age clap-trap that gets all the attention. I invite you to check out this site, which has some of the more important are serious skeptical work being done today:
http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

[Monster104]

Asking for posters like these to come back is to fighting ignorance as trying to summon the Anti-Christ is to being religious.

Or something.

[SPOOFE]

Apos, I concede defeat. I can’t even begin to mount a counter to that ironclad proof.

The proof is in the pudding, people! The moon landings were faked!!!

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by Apos *
Well, it looks like I’m the only one who will stand up for the skepticism here, in a sea of blind credulity. Skeptics are often ridiculed with old lies about their criticisms: like saying that most moon skeptics actually believe there should be stars in the moon photos.

Hah! I studied the site you link to very carefully, and one of their clearly stated criticisms was:

Firstly, despite the absence of an atmosphere, no stars can be seen in the sky.

and

Notice the absence of stars again.

Yet in other places they seem to be saying the pictures are faked because there are stars! (“Oh yes NASA, it’s all very well adding stars on this picture just to make us realise how wrong we have been.”) You just can’t win with these people!

Oh, sure, they may seem more reasonable than some, but it’s the usual tissue of misleading statements, half-truths, and outright lies. (For one thing, I think they are the ones retouching NASA’s photographs. I compared some of their allegedly “unretouched NASA photographs” with real photos from the official NASA website, and there were numerous inconsistencies.)

[The_Clawman]

Crikey, the Clangers and Space 1999 in a GD thread! How often does THAT happen?

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by emarkp *
**What’s been forgotten here is that moon-landing-hoaxers don’t claim that we didn’t leave artifacts on the moon, only that human beings didn’t go (after all, those Van Allen Belts have sooo much radiation…). Seeing the Apollo artifacts on the moon won’t convince them. Seeing video footage won’t convince them. Heck, even getting decked by one of the men who walked on the moon won’t convince them. It’s pretty clear that nothing will. **

Is this a debate about the moon, or about God?