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 ProfWag » 27 Dec 2012, 02:43

Misha wrote:Thanks, ProfWag. On another note, especially considering the radiation issue. I am currently reading Robert Jay Lifton's and Greg Mitchell's book - "Hiroshima In America." Essentially the book deals with the moral, ethical and spiritual implications of using the A-Bomb. Lifton is a wonderful writer. I had read his book years ago on "The Nazi Doctors" and find him to be judicious and insightful on the subject.

I remember using Lifton as a reference in a paper I wrote in a military school a few years back. He's pretty darn smart. For the psychology of war atrocities, my fav is Victor Frankle.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






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

Postby Misha » 27 Dec 2012, 06:01

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:Thanks, ProfWag. On another note, especially considering the radiation issue. I am currently reading Robert Jay Lifton's and Greg Mitchell's book - "Hiroshima In America." Essentially the book deals with the moral, ethical and spiritual implications of using the A-Bomb. Lifton is a wonderful writer. I had read his book years ago on "The Nazi Doctors" and find him to be judicious and insightful on the subject.

I remember using Lifton as a reference in a paper I wrote in a military school a few years back. He's pretty darn smart. For the psychology of war atrocities, my fav is Victor Frankle.


Hi ProfWag, I have read Viktor Frankel's book - "Man's Search for Meaning." I have often quoted him. You see I have done my homework too. Yet, you and I are world's apart on its meaning I suspect. I wonder why you went to the shape-shifting lizard conspiracy? Please take this the right way from someone who concedes we are both intelligent - You're better than that.

Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life; everyone must carry out a concrete assignment that demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated, thus, everyone's task is unique as his specific opportunity to implement it.
Viktor E. Frankl
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 27 Dec 2012, 12:13

The23rdman wrote:I'm wondering if this isn't just delaying someone on the "moon landings happened" side from answering anything other than the one single point about one or two photos.

hmm, indeed, that's very perspicacious. Lots of well wishes for the Xmas season and happy new years etc for a few pages to bury the evidence, that's the way... there's a few more incriminating vids and photos I'm yet to find and post, this exercise has been extremely interesting, because I'm finding google searches just aren't returning materials I've seen before from following links -- I think it's either stale sites and non-existent SEO work by the site authors from pre-SEO days, or certain parties (NASA, govt, etc) are making strenuous efforts to SEO other sites and bury the expose sites. I'm now tempted from this exercise to start a site of credible evidence as posted here and SEO the hell out of it -- a friend does it for a living...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 12:18

Syd: you don't take my advice about dealing with one topic at a time, you flood the thread with videos and pictures, and anytime someone starts to criticise one of them you try and change the subject by saying well, what about all the rest?

The only one burying anything is you. If you want to accomplish something why don't you take my lead and pick one - and only one - to discuss in more depth. After which you can move onto the next one. Probably better to start a new thread for that one. Leave this thread as the dumping ground for future reference.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 28 Dec 2012, 01:27

SydneyPSIder wrote:Lots of well wishes for the Xmas season and happy new years etc for a few pages to bury the evidence, that's the way...

All the best to you and yours as well. As for having "evidence" burried.... ya snooze, ya lose.

SydneyPSIder wrote:there's a few more incriminating vids and photos I'm yet to find and post, this exercise has been extremely interesting, because I'm finding google searches just aren't returning materials I've seen before from following links -- I think it's either stale sites and non-existent SEO work by the site authors from pre-SEO days, or certain parties (NASA, govt, etc) are making strenuous efforts to SEO other sites and bury the expose sites.

I'm thinking that a topic about these problems can be interesting.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby Arouet » 28 Dec 2012, 01:49

The topic should include how practical would it be for NASA or the US Government to eliminate sites? Is it even possible? No one would believe that the person maintaining the site didn't have backups of any pictures hosted on the site. How simple would it be to publish somewhere else? Seems like a fools erand. If countries like China can't keep a lid on stuff like that, how could the US?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 28 Dec 2012, 06:31

Arouet wrote:The topic should include how practical would it be for NASA or the US Government to eliminate sites? Is it even possible? No one would believe that the person maintaining the site didn't have backups of any pictures hosted on the site. How simple would it be to publish somewhere else? Seems like a fools erand. If countries like China can't keep a lid on stuff like that, how could the US?

I made one: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2649#p29565
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Dec 2012, 06:54

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
Did I publish the light globe computer analysis image earlier?

Image

According to your referenced post, NASA took down those photos. Why don't you do a bit of research on your own to see if they really were? Oh, you don't know how? Here are the links to the 2 referenced photos on NASA's website to help you out. You'll find they are still there. Some conspiracist is blowing smoke up your behind, Syd.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5935HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6765HR.jpg


No, that's fine -- these photos should be re-analysed independently to verify the claim of the light bulb artifact. However, how do we know NASA didn't take these down, retouch them digitally with today's technology to remove the artifact and make them sheer white, then put them back up again? Let's be fair here.

In fact, you would have to go back to the researcher who downloaded the original, and compare the original with any replacement that might have been put up or altered. Of course, how do you prove that the researcher hasn't been tempted to produce the light globe artifact? Certainly a very strong incandescent globe is consonant with lighting technology of the 1960s -- were halogens in use at that time, for instance?

So your claim is invalid without further checking. If the artifact is gone, then it doesn't prove anything on either side.

The other evidence is far stronger, this is a relatively minor piece of evidence. I think the stereoscopic analysis and all the other footage showing support wires, impossible recoveries from falls and flags blowin' in the wind are fare more compelling and important.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Dec 2012, 08:33

Arouet wrote:Syd: you don't take my advice about dealing with one topic at a time, you flood the thread with videos and pictures, and anytime someone starts to criticise one of them you try and change the subject by saying well, what about all the rest?

The only one burying anything is you. If you want to accomplish something why don't you take my lead and pick one - and only one - to discuss in more depth. After which you can move onto the next one. Probably better to start a new thread for that one. Leave this thread as the dumping ground for future reference.


OK, the stereoscopic photo analysis I posted then, and invited you to discuss at least twice. Go for it. Your time starts now.

Then we can do the wireflashes and impossible puppetry when people fall over on the surface of the moon?

Then maybe the 'hand damage' evidence suffered by the Apollo 17 astronots that disappeared in 2 hours.

Then maybe some of the more circumstantial stuff like radiation, model-making, special effects, fake lighting, wrong lighting wavelengths for the sun, moon rocks, moon soil samples not agreeing with Russian samples, and so on.

Of course, I think you're just being an ass.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby Arouet » 28 Dec 2012, 08:52

So start a thread on the one you want to talk about. I started a thread on my chosen topic. One that you described as important. I look forward to your participation in that thread too.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Dec 2012, 09:33

Arouet wrote:So start a thread on the one you want to talk about. I started a thread on my chosen topic. One that you described as important. I look forward to your participation in that thread too.

I might build this one up for a while, amass the evidence in one place, then fan out a little, time permitting. I think you have a bit of a 'divide and conquer' strategy going on there, on the other hand, (i.e. attenuate the message over several threads, not actually deal with the evidence and disprove it.) Whatever is up, you seem to be heavily into time-wasting and diversionary activity and skirting around dealing with ANY of the evidence meaningfully, instead deliberately choosing the most vague circumstantial stuff that you know is hard to out and out prove and trying to bog posters down with that. Good for you, Arou! Go hard, dude!
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby Arouet » 28 Dec 2012, 11:08

Misha wrote:

Ok, ProfWag. Instead of Leggos how about Lincoln Logs? Just Kidding. Actually, it was Arouet who suggested taking one piece of evidence and running with it. My biggest contention with Apollo is the radiation issue. ProfWag, have you gone through White's "Radiation Anomaly" series?



You wrote:

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Why not discuss moon rocks and radiation evidence and physics reasoning and try to keep the thread on topic for a change, so you can get trounced the way you fear you will, with your zero evidential base.


and this:

It's a waste of time feeding the trolls, especially when they get into a tag-teaming frenzy because they're losing a point, but here's a direct quote from the FAQ site cited 3 times now:


You wanna tell me how the topic of radiation went from high priority, that you brought up three times and that you specifically taunted me to discuss to "the most vague circumstantial stuff that you know is hard to out and out prove"?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Dec 2012, 13:06

Arouet wrote:Misha wrote:

Ok, ProfWag. Instead of Leggos how about Lincoln Logs? Just Kidding. Actually, it was Arouet who suggested taking one piece of evidence and running with it. My biggest contention with Apollo is the radiation issue. ProfWag, have you gone through White's "Radiation Anomaly" series?



You wrote:

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Why not discuss moon rocks and radiation evidence and physics reasoning and try to keep the thread on topic for a change, so you can get trounced the way you fear you will, with your zero evidential base.


and this:

It's a waste of time feeding the trolls, especially when they get into a tag-teaming frenzy because they're losing a point, but here's a direct quote from the FAQ site cited 3 times now:


You wanna tell me how the topic of radiation went from high priority, that you brought up three times and that you specifically taunted me to discuss to "the most vague circumstantial stuff that you know is hard to out and out prove"?

You seem to be obssessed with this issue of 'radiation', which is only a small and fairly circumstantial part of the evidence. I have mentioned visual anomalies and many other impossibilities many more times than three times. Can you look at those other anomalies also? Weren't you the one saying I 'must be new to forums because I can't cope with multiple tangents at once'? Why don't you start dealing with some of the other tangents and 'debunk' the more concrete research and ridiculous anomalies produced by the NASA model-making team and Gilligan's Island set-making team and demonstrate how they could possibly have been on the moon?

Even comparing the jagged topology of Mt Hadley produced by unmanned surveyor craft and the rounded images in the fake Apollo footage shows remarkably different mountains at a glance. How do you explain that one away, Arou?

All we have on radiation that we know about are studies in the 50s by van Allen that imply radiation belts around the earth are extremely dangerous, let alone the effects of solar wind radiation in deep space. For some reason, van Allen publicly 'recanted' a few years later when it came time to fake the Apollo missions. Can you explain why he recanted?

There is a totality of evidence you just cannot refute, no matter how hard you try. And interestingly you haven't tried to refute any of it. Seems like you have other agendas here on this site. Just because I said 'go hard' at sabotaging this site doesn't mean I actually meant it...

And Arouet is almost an anagram of 'saboteur', except I think you have pretensions to being Voltaire -- a remarkable social reformer, socialist and critic of the established order, in fact, somewhat contary to your stance.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby The23rdman » 28 Dec 2012, 19:44

Sydney, you are coming across really oddly here, mate. If you want to discuss this stuff - I mean really discuss it then it has to be done in a way that posts and information doesn't get lost. You claim to have a scientific nature, but all I see is slapdash posting. You have been given the opportunity to take any one topic and explore it in depth. That is the only way we can come to any useful conclusion.

I'm not seeing much other than lots of posting, paranoid attacking of Arouet for wanting to discus one thing at a time and exactly the kind of avoidance you are accusing him of. I suggest you pick a subject (seeing as you seem to have decided radiation isn't for you now) and we can all try and discuss the merits of it without accusations and silly name calling. If you don't want to do this, that's fine, but I will be blocking you because I came here to have intelligent and open-minded discussions about some topics that interest me. I've yet to see anything from you that suggests you are anything other than the pseudoskeptic you claim to be against.

I'm sorry if this appears harsh, but I am not only willing, but hoping you can prove this a wrong assessment.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Dec 2012, 21:53

The23rdman wrote:Sydney, you are coming across really oddly here, mate. If you want to discuss this stuff - I mean really discuss it then it has to be done in a way that posts and information doesn't get lost. You claim to have a scientific nature, but all I see is slapdash posting. You have been given the opportunity to take any one topic and explore it in depth. That is the only way we can come to any useful conclusion.

I'm not seeing much other than lots of posting, paranoid attacking of Arouet for wanting to discus one thing at a time and exactly the kind of avoidance you are accusing him of. I suggest you pick a subject (seeing as you seem to have decided radiation isn't for you now) and we can all try and discuss the merits of it without accusations and silly name calling. If you don't want to do this, that's fine, but I will be blocking you because I came here to have intelligent and open-minded discussions about some topics that interest me. I've yet to see anything from you that suggests you are anything other than the pseudoskeptic you claim to be against.

I'm sorry if this appears harsh, but I am not only willing, but hoping you can prove this a wrong assessment.


You're just being silly, and not reading posts again. if you read the posts above properly, I've said 3 times we should discuss the stereoscopic analysis. Or any of the visual evidence already submitted. I have to paste in chunks of evidence to get the ball rolling in discussion, otherwise there is nothing at all to discuss, and the pseudosceps will just go on and on about nothing, which they're still attempting to do. In the past 2-3 pages, there have been submissions from me on:

- wireflashes and impossible anti-gravity due to harnesses being used
- stereoscopic analysis showing sets of depth 50 m to the 'mountains' and an analysis of the curved projection screens used
- evidence of large-scale model-making including fake lunar balls 20' across and large lunar surfaces
- light bulb artifacts in the 'sun'
- Russian lunar soil analysis disagrees markedly with Apollo samples analyses, but agrees with actual moon evidence
- fake Apollo 17 photos
- 'hand damage' to Apollo 17 astronauts fixed immediately on splashdown
- probably a couple of other things
- more to come

Which one would you like to look at in more depth? I'm happy to discuss any of those above in more detail.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

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