View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Dec 2012, 05:54

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:
Thanks, NinjaPuppy. I have wrestled with this for years and obviously still do. As a specie we are incredibly dangerous when confronted with adversity. We fragment, blame, dissociate, lash out, and all the litany of human maladies when we don't understand things. However, I think in the long term we will be far more dangerous when we don't know the truth. It is the lies which creates cynicism and destruction. I think it is this entropic state which is confronting the human specie at this point.

Misha, not everything is a lie and many, many things actually "are" as they seem. If you look hard enough and listen to everyone with an opinion, one can find potential lies in most any subject. I think you need to get out of the city and take a nice walk through the woods or a wildflower field. The world really IS a beautiful place with many, many, many honest and decent people.

They're just not in NASA, the govt, the military or big business. Only the 'little people' are honest and decent and non-psychopaths it seems. And only about half of those, the rest are Republicans.

Just escape from it all and take a walk in the countryside, everything will be alright.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 25 Dec 2012, 05:55

Arouet wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Unfortunately I rarely turn a good line from a fictional movie into a hours of contemplation. Give me something serious, factual, and full of wisdom. "Go ahead, make my day."


C'mon Prof! That line is awesome enough to warrant a couple of bench hours! Here it is for everyone:



(EDIT: Just watching that clip again makes me want to go back and watch that movie again!)


Wonderful quote, Arouet! Alan Sorkin wrote the script by the way. Here's one, guys. Can you guess what film it came from?:

"First rule in government spending. Why build one when you can have two at twice the price."


Geez, do you think Apollo fits this bill? Want to go for a ride, ProfWag....?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 25 Dec 2012, 06:01

really? wrote:[quote="Misha]Thanks, NinjaPuppy. I have wrestled with this for years and obviously still do. As a specie we are incredibly dangerous when confronted with adversity. We fragment, blame, dissociate, lash out, and all the litany of human maladies when we don't understand things. However, I think in the long term we will be far more dangerous when we don't know the truth. It is the lies which creates cynicism and destruction. I think it is this entropic state which is confronting the human specie at this point.
[/quote]
The distrust you have does not start from without. As I said before, sometimes, the truth is staring you right in the face.[/quote]


Really, I am out in the woods on this one. I do not understand your first point. As for the truth staring you right in the face - Bravo! I knew we had something in common.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 25 Dec 2012, 06:03

Misha wrote:ProfWag, did I ever say that everything is a lie? Absolutely not. Your phrasing is typical of the programmed. And yes, I get out of the city when I can. I often go to my brother's place up north and just walk the beach. In fact, I have spent many years on an Island in the Caribbean contemplating the world. I have walked the woods of Ohio, Florida, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. I have spent time in the Delta of Mississippi and have been on horseback in Texas. I have walked the small towns in Illinois and Maine - minus the lions and tigers - I watch for moose and bears. I have lived in all these places and have come to realize that the world is what we make of it.

Well let's see--you think 9/11 is a cover-up, you would take a bullet for a moon hoax theory, and it appears everyone but Lee Oswald shot Kennedy. What common conspiracy do you NOT believe?
Also, I apologize for coming across as if you never get out of the city. I assumed you did and didn't mean for it to sound that way, but I really do think that you go through life feeling like you distrust most everyone and my comment was just meant for you to consider that there are a lot of wonderful things in the world when we stop to consider them sometimes.
Last edited by ProfWag on 25 Dec 2012, 06:08, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 25 Dec 2012, 06:06

SydneyPSIder wrote:[They're just not in NASA, the govt, the military or big business. Only the 'little people' are honest and decent and non-psychopaths it seems. And only about half of those, the rest are Republicans.


Coming from someone who doesn't live in America, I take that as quite rude and insulting.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Dec 2012, 06:16

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:ha, that's pretty hilarious. ProfWag has become a sort of self-parody. You're clearly not a sceptic in the sense avowed even by the Skeptics Association, because you repeatedly and consistently refuse to study clear evidence on frivolous or spurious grounds. You're just written yourself an excuse to avoid studying the totality of the evidence that's out there. It's just laughably transparent to all other participants and readers of the forum, and you do it over and over. Since you've taken the ostrich defence (yet again), at least the CIA won't be knocking on your door, I suppose -- it's much safer for you that way. It's obvious you will never contribute anything of worth to a debate here, though.

And what evidence is that Syd? I have appreciated you giving me the opportunity to re-examine this subject which I enjoyed, but I was not presented with anything new except for fake pictures posted by liars (and regardless, photos don't prove one thing towards whether we went to the moon.). To believe that dozens of astronauts who are among the brightest of people on earth, coupled with the vast number of engineers involved in the design, planning, and building, tripled with the scientists who have examined the physical evidence to all have been in on some elaborate hoax, just to have bragging rights over the Soviets is absolutely ridiculous. There would be no other reason.
Here's an honest question that I would like you and Misha to answer. Would you, yourself, have been willing to keep a hoax of this importance and magnitude quiet? There are some bad apples out there, and if you answered "yes," then you would be one of them, but the highest caliber of people were/are involved in the space program from around the world and the men and women involved in this project could not cover up a mission like that--and I don't give a damn about what you think it would take to keep them quiet.
If/when the time comes that you can present serious evidence that doesn't involve fake pictures or references to conspiracy websites, then I'll be happy to reengage.


You're just spouting a belief system and faith-based nonsense. You don't appear to have evaluated any of the evidence presented. If I was a college professor marking you on your observational skills, ability to assess evidence, logic and common sense, I couldn't even give you a mercy pass, I'd have to give you 0/10 and suggest you find a simple job somewhere that requires no thinking. Or the military, perhaps. Or is that a tautology.

The evidence presented thus far includes:
- wire flashes on NASA video
- impossible recoveries from falls without the assistance of supports
- a computer stereoscopic analysis of NASA photos that indicates a set rather than a real moonscape
- evidence of large-scale, accurate model-making of the moon's topography
- unrealistic moonscapes
- models or simulations of space docks
- an eye-witness account from a pilot who saw a C5 drop of re-rentry module for splashdown (second hand)
- evidence of use of models in moon launch sequences due to unrealistic sequences
- a whole host of other circumstantial evidence regarding the degree of difficulty of pulling off 6 manned missions to the moon without a significant hitch or failure or death or case of non-return - probabilistic analysis
- bizarre psychology of the astronauts who claim to have gone on these missions
- blue skies in supposed deep space shots
- lack of research and data-gathering by NASA on radiation dangers -- still yet to be done even today
- no interest from NASA in returning to the moon in 40 years to build on the success of your astronaut and engineering 'geniuses' (just good actors and model makers in reality - kind of like the cast of Star Wars coupled with Industrial Light and Magic)
- supposed seroius damage to the hands of Apollo 17 astronauts miraculously healed in an hour
- a host of other info out there demonstrating fraudulent accounts by the astronauts -- astronauts contradicting each other on whether you can see stars in space or not, no evidence of passing through a radiation belt, mistakes in the memoirs in the failed Apollo 13 mission where an astronaut claims they could see the attempted landing site when in fact it would have been in darkness, etc.

The astronauts are very very far from being the brightest, the majority of them sound like hicks, in fact. I know a lot brighter. I'm not actually interested in discussing any issues with a character like this, to be honest, I'll either block or ignore in future. One particularly poor example of a pseudoscep gone, 2 or 3 to go... hope the others can redeem themselves by demonstrating even a skerrick of actual logic, ability to evaluate evidence, and common sense.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Dec 2012, 06:17

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:[They're just not in NASA, the govt, the military or big business. Only the 'little people' are honest and decent and non-psychopaths it seems. And only about half of those, the rest are Republicans.


Coming from someone who doesn't live in America, I take that as quite rude and insulting.

Rude and insulting to whom?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 25 Dec 2012, 06:18

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:ProfWag, did I ever say that everything is a lie? Absolutely not. Your phrasing is typical of the programmed. And yes, I get out of the city when I can. I often go to my brother's place up north and just walk the beach. In fact, I have spent many years on an Island in the Caribbean contemplating the world. I have walked the woods of Ohio, Florida, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. I have spent time in the Delta of Mississippi and have been on horseback in Texas. I have walked the small towns in Illinois and Maine - minus the lions and tigers - I watch for moose and bears. I have lived in all these places and have come to realize that the world is what we make of it.

Well let's see--you think 9/11 is a cover-up, you would take a bullet for a moon hoax theory, and it appears everyone but Lee Oswald shot Kennedy. What common conspiracy do you NOT believe?
Also, I apologize for coming across as if you never get out of the city. I assumed you did and didn't mean for it to sound that way, but I really do think that you go through life feeling like you distrust most everyone and my comment was just meant for you to consider that there are a lot of wonderful things in the world when we stop to consider them sometimes.


ProfWag, 9/11 was a coverup. Yes, I would take a bullet on the Apollo at this point. Oswald was a patsy. And, yes. Just show me one document where Hitler signed off on the Holocaust. Do not project that I think there was no atrocities committed by the Third Reich. There were. I am being really specific about documentation. That's it. By the way, I could not find your Holocaust denier reference in my reply. So, I am going off of memory.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Dec 2012, 06:25

Misha, I think you and I just have to accept that ProfWag has a strong faith-based belief system and set of allegiances that cloud his public utterances, if not his internal judgement, and move on.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Dec 2012, 06:31

Evidence of NASA 'touching up' pics -- different 'shades of black' under computer analysis:

Image

http://www.aulis.com/allen_bis.htm

Did I publish the light globe computer analysis image earlier?

Image

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/as12sunbulbrevise.jpg

Image

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11_14sunsetonmoon.jpg

Note that NASA took down the pic which demonstrates a light bulb after the computer analysis was published. Who says the govt, military and NASA aren't reading the 'wacky CT websites' that ProfWag rejects?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 25 Dec 2012, 07:54

ProfWag,

Here is a very good example of how secrets are kept through compartmentalization. Fast forward to 45 minutes and listen to Thomas Drake talk about how only a few knew of "Stellar Wind" and the rest of the NSA was out of the loop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04s1UU_gsd0

That is how secrets are kept. And whistle-blowers are a very, very rare breed. Thomas Drake was one out of thirty thousand employees at NSA.

Now for Apollo our national identity was at stake. The level of embarrassment would have been much higher than this NSA infraction. Now, how many in the know will go there?

Now as Cliff Robertson had said in "Three Days of The Condor" - "How do you know they'll print it?"

So in essence, I am saying this:

"Papa Dragon, here. I want this mission high and tight. I want to be back home for dinner."
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Dec 2012, 11:31

ProfWag has declared himself blinkered, overwrought and out of the running to review or discuss any evidence due to patriotic conflicts of interest, in his customary manner, so maybe one of the remaining pseudosceps who haven't disqualified themselves might want to discuss the evidence, and attempt to apply logic and common sense in their arguments to refute, say, the stereoscopic studies?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Dec 2012, 12:12

Some other interesting snippets:

Sibrel says that "a successful manned mission to the Moon offered a wonderful, pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the citizens of America over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War",[187] with lunar activities stopping abruptly and planned missions cancelled around the same time that the USA ceased its involvement in Vietnam.[188]


This is what I have been arguing:
Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, and author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy.[208]

Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of whom possess science degrees,[209] he wrote the book "Americans on the Moon" (2009).[210][211] In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA,[209] and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it into five groups:
1.Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
2.Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
3.Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
4.Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
5.Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.

Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place.[13] He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).[212][213]


Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence[347] and non-oxidation,[348] contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface),[349] orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity. Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.[84](pp. 141–152, 208–210, 216–224, 231–232)[350][351]
Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.[352][353] The explanation is simple—the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.[84](pp. 467–470)

In the 1990s, publications about lunar soil simulation started to appear.[354] They could not have appeared earlier as this would raise questions about the Apollo programme.[355]

First lunar soil was brought to Earth by the Soviet space robots Luna 16 (1970), Luna 20 (1972), and Luna 24 (1976).[10][358]

347.↑ A. Mokhov, Moon under microscope, Science Publishing House, 2007, ISBN 9785020342804 (Rus.)
348.↑ A. Mokhov et al, Find of unusual complex oxides and η-bronze in lunar regolith, Doklady Earth Sciences, ISSN 1028-334X, Vol. 421, No. 2, 8/08
349.↑ Belyaev, Y., Koveshnikova, T., On the mercury content in highland (Luna 20) and mare (Luna 16) regolith., Regolith from the highland region of the Moon, pp. 468, 469
350.↑ "Lunar soil from Mare Fecunditatis", Collection of articles, Science Publishing House, 1974, pp. 280, 290, 292, 311, 312, 336, 337, 403, 427, 429, 433, 435, 437, 438, 440, 444, 469, 478, 519, 522, 523 (Rus.)
351.↑ Petrology of a portion of the Mare Fecunditatis regolith, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 13, 1/1/72, pp. 257–271
352.↑ Moon soils store Earth's early breath, Nature, 2/8/05
353.↑ Moon soils store Earth's early breath, M. Peplow, 3/8/05
354.↑ JSC-1: A new lunar soil simulant, Proceedings of "Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space IV", ASCE, 1994, pp. 857–866
355.↑ a b A. Popov, The American lunar soil—a rich soil for doubts, 16/3/09 (Rus.)
356.↑ Astromaterials acquisition and curation at JSC, C. Allen, NASA, 12/03
357.↑ Forecast of upcoming anniversaries, NASA, 5/1/09
358.↑ Lunar soil, Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, 19/9/01 (Rus.)


Lots more info on the page.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_Landings_Hoax
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 25 Dec 2012, 14:23, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 25 Dec 2012, 12:56

SydneyPSIder wrote:Some other interesting snippets:

Sibrel says that "a successful manned mission to the Moon offered a wonderful, pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the citizens of America over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War",[187] with lunar activities stopping abruptly and planned missions cancelled around the same time that the USA ceased its involvement in Vietnam.[188]


This is what I have been arguing:
Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, and author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy.[208]

Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of whom possess science degrees,[209] he wrote the book "Americans on the Moon" (2009).[210][211] In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA,[209] and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it into five groups:
1.Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
2.Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
3.Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
4.Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
5.Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.

Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place.[13] He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).[212][213]


Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence[347] and non-oxidation,[348] contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface),[349] orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity. Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.[84](pp. 141–152, 208–210, 216–224, 231–232)[350][351]
Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.[352][353] The explanation is simple—the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.[84](pp. 467–470)

In the 1990s, publications about lunar soil simulation started to appear.[354] They could not have appeared earlier as this would raise questions about the Apollo programme.[355]

First lunar soil was brought to Earth by the Soviet space robots Luna 16 (1970), Luna 20 (1972), and Luna 24 (1976).[10][358]


Lots more info on the page.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_Landings_Hoax


Damn, Syd. If the U.S. congress was working this hard on Christmas eve I would vote for them.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 25 Dec 2012, 20:43

SydneyPSIder wrote:. If I was a college professor marking you on your observational skills, ability to assess evidence, logic and common sense, I couldn't even give you a mercy pass, I'd have to give you 0/10 and suggest you find a simple job somewhere that requires no thinking.

Well, perhaps that's why I was and you're not.
Last edited by ProfWag on 25 Dec 2012, 21:43, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest