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 Arouet » 21 Jul 2013, 04:00

Misha: when is the guy going to get beyond rhetoric?

Is this one of the gems that you feel is "spot on"?

We will also require a sanitation/septic system of some kind. Or did those missions bring about another ‘first’ that NASA has been reluctant to brag about? Was Neil Armstrong, unbeknownst to the American people, the first man to take a dump on lunar soil? Or was it Buzz Aldrin? Which astronaut has the distinction of being the first to soil the lunar landscape?


He goes through a list of things that need to be part of the ship seemingly by just sitting and thinking about it:

I’m not at all sure how the air conditioning system is going to work, come to think of it, since air conditioning requires a steady supply of – and please stop me if I am stating the obvious here – air. And the Moon doesn’t really have a lot of that.


Really?

Or this:

Before moving on, I need to emphasize here just how sophisticated the lunar modules actually were. These remarkable spacecraft – and I understandably get a little choked up here talking about this, because I am just so damn proud of our team of Nazi scientists – managed to make six perfect take-offs from the surface of the Moon! And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!


How do you make a comment like this:

I’m quite sure that we had the best minds available working on the Apollo project, but none of them could have accurately predicted and compensated for how all those unearthly conditions would combine to affect the flight potential of the lunar modules. So the ability of the modules to actually blast off from the Moon and fly was, at best, a theoretical concept.


Without actually discussing the details - what was claimed, what are the issues we know of - why does he think it should not have been possible? It's like he thinks asking the question with a sarcastic tone is sufficient!

Or this:

Today, of course, we can’t even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though we have lowered our sights considerably. After all, sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit is considerably easier than sending spacecraft all the way to the friggin’ Moon and back. It would appear then that we can draw the following conclusion: although technology has advanced immeasurably since the first Apollo Moon landing and we have significantly downgraded our goals in space, we can’t come close to matching the kick-ass safety record we had in the Apollo days.


Two pages in and nothing but rhetoric.

Maybe he'll get to substance on the next page.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






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

Postby Misha » 21 Jul 2013, 05:32

Hi Arouet,

Yes, ole Dave has some sense of humor. I get a kick how he lampoons things. Yes, a lot of what he illustrates is tongue and cheek. Yet, he illustrates the practical problems with the Apollo record. By the way, have you read Percy and Bennett's book - Dark Moon or Gerhard Wisnewski's book - One Small Step? I have and it is obvious that Dave is using this information which I am familiar with. Arouet, you can contact Dave at his site. There is contact information which you can ask him definitively where he got his information.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby Misha » 21 Jul 2013, 05:45

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote: Dave's Apollo analysis in my humble opinion is spot on. Dave does make some excellent points on the Boston Bombing, not all to my satisfaction, but some of which defies logic. Guys, do not be swayed or think you're not patriotic by searching.

Misha, I have looked at his moon landing "analysis" and I happen to notice that he mentions many different things, but not one of them are referenced. Are you not curious as to where he gets his information? Is that not important to you? How do you know he hasn't made up everything he says? It appears obvious to me that you find his analysis "spot on" because you agree with his rhetoric rather than because you find his opinion academically plausible.


ProfWag, You wrote in the above post for July 20, 2013, 7:25am (See your post) and responded on July 20, 2013, 7:45am that you "looked" at Dave's information. That's 20 minutes. Now, let's be fair that it took you say three minutes to write your response and post at the 7:45 EST. That leaves you with a window for reentry for commentary, provided you don't "skip off," 18 minutes of hard evaluation of someone you are ashamed of. ProfWag, now are you being fair or overly critical because Dave's thesis doesn't comport with your "BELIEF" system?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby ProfWag » 21 Jul 2013, 19:38

Misha, when someone who is writing an article on the LM and they say something like this: "And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!" it doesn't take long to understand they don't know what they are talking about. What do you think is a fair enough time to analyze their comments? We see people write the same things over and over, usually plagiarizing what others say (as you even admitted yourself in an earlier post), and nothing new has come out in 45 years!
I spent some time looking at his Boston Bomber thing (which totally disgusted my, by the way) so when looking at his moon crap, I, admittedly, went into it without giving the guy much credence to begin with.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Misha » 21 Jul 2013, 23:13

ProfWag wrote:Misha, when someone who is writing an article on the LM and they say something like this: "And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!" it doesn't take long to understand they don't know what they are talking about. What do you think is a fair enough time to analyze their comments? We see people write the same things over and over, usually plagiarizing what others say (as you even admitted yourself in an earlier post), and nothing new has come out in 45 years!
I spent some time looking at his Boston Bomber thing (which totally disgusted my, by the way) so when looking at his moon crap, I, admittedly, went into it without giving the guy much credence to begin with.


Hi ProfWag,

The LEM was indeed not reliable during tests. None of the astronauts could operate the simulation on earth. Remember, Neil Armstrong damn near augured in during one of the tests. ProfWag, please direct me to the quote you mentioned and I will look at it in its proper context.

Agreed, people do plagiarize. I indeed pointed this out in which David Irving accuses other researches of doing the same. However, you did not read ALL of Dave's work. Dave brings a very cynical look and a historical context to the Apollo picture which is worth understanding.

"Moon crap"....sigh. You only spent around 18 minutes reading it, correct? ProfWag, have you read the aforementioned books that I listed in a previous post?

As for the Boston Bombing thread, I concur with Dave's analysis on the lack of physical damage to the buildings, the snow fence, the advertising tarp, blown out glass from the store, and lack of injuries from the second bomb site. I emailed Dave to clarify the injuries sustained and why he believes them to be suspect. Let us not be ashamed to look and ask questions. But, first we must be fair and read what argument is brought to the table. Do you not agree?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Jul 2013, 01:03

Misha wrote:Let us not be ashamed to look and ask questions. But, first we must be fair and read what argument is brought to the table. Do you not agree?

Wise words..... very wise words. Thank you for putting this out there so eloquently.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby Misha » 22 Jul 2013, 04:18

Thanks, NinjaPuppy.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby ProfWag » 22 Jul 2013, 19:37

Misha wrote: ProfWag, please direct me to the quote you mentioned and I will look at it in its proper context.

The quote is from here, towards the bottom of the page: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo2.html
Please remember though, MIsha, that in order to look at it in its proper context, one needs a reference for which he did not provide. The reason he didn't provide? Because it sounds better for a CTer to provide this information rather than actually give details on just how the equipment actually was tested. It makes it more believable when one can say anything they want without feeling the need to back it up.
I can provide several references for their LM testing if you need me to.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 22 Jul 2013, 19:44

Misha wrote:
As for the Boston Bombing thread, I concur with Dave's analysis on the lack of physical damage to the buildings, the snow fence, the advertising tarp, blown out glass from the store, and lack of injuries from the second bomb site. I emailed Dave to clarify the injuries sustained and why he believes them to be suspect. Let us not be ashamed to look and ask questions. But, first we must be fair and read what argument is brought to the table. Do you not agree?

Just WHY do you concur with his analysis on the lack of physical damage to the buildings? Just how big of a bomb does one need to cause extensive damage to a building? Were the pressure cookers large enough to do that? Did Dave go out and test how they react? I doubt it. Here is a link to those that actually did that with their results. Does it look to you like it would cause physical damage to a concrete, reinforced building?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 22 Jul 2013, 19:51

Misha wrote: But, first we must be fair and read what argument is brought to the table. Do you not agree?

Absolutely, as long as the argument is "fair" and facts are not twisted in such a manner to hide the truth in order to get an anti-governmental point across. Again, Dave is twisting facts without actually doing any testing on his own. He made a claim that the bomb went off half way up a building, yet all the videos clearly show it was on the ground. Why would he do that? Because the facts don't fit into his personal beliefs so he has to twist them to make his point. And shame on him.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Misha » 22 Jul 2013, 22:22

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:
As for the Boston Bombing thread, I concur with Dave's analysis on the lack of physical damage to the buildings, the snow fence, the advertising tarp, blown out glass from the store, and lack of injuries from the second bomb site. I emailed Dave to clarify the injuries sustained and why he believes them to be suspect. Let us not be ashamed to look and ask questions. But, first we must be fair and read what argument is brought to the table. Do you not agree?

Just WHY do you concur with his analysis on the lack of physical damage to the buildings? Just how big of a bomb does one need to cause extensive damage to a building? Were the pressure cookers large enough to do that? Did Dave go out and test how they react? I doubt it. Here is a link to those that actually did that with their results. Does it look to you like it would cause physical damage to a concrete, reinforced building?


ProfWag,

If you had read Dave's Boston Bombing thread you will see he used the exact CNN clip which you provided. Yes, Dave addresses the damage to buildings. We have been told by the authorities this was a pressure cooker loaded with nails and ball bearings, correct? Now show me the pitted buildings, snow fence and advertising tarp of such damage. As the CNN clip rightly points out that these two bombs at Boston were NON-DIRECTIONAL devices. That means the shrapnel goes everywhere. Again, show me the damage to structures other than the victims (Glass doesn't count). In fact, why was the glass blown OUT from the building when the device was exploded by or near the street? Take a look at the pictures, please. Why didn't others in the vicinity not hit by projectiles moving 2000 feet per second? Furthermore, since when do bombs only take of Legs? What about arms or hands? Since when do bombs not blow people's genitalia off? Why do all the victims have their LEG pants shredded and not their pants (groin area) shredded and missing? Why didn't the attending physicians not have squirting blood all over them? These are just questions.....
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby Misha » 22 Jul 2013, 22:36

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote: ProfWag, please direct me to the quote you mentioned and I will look at it in its proper context.

The quote is from here, towards the bottom of the page: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo2.html
Please remember though, MIsha, that in order to look at it in its proper context, one needs a reference for which he did not provide. The reason he didn't provide? Because it sounds better for a CTer to provide this information rather than actually give details on just how the equipment actually was tested. It makes it more believable when one can say anything they want without feeling the need to back it up.
I can provide several references for their LM testing if you need me to.


ProfWag,

You're cherry picking. Here is your quote in context with a very small part of Dave's thesis which you have to read en toto:




Before moving on, I need to emphasize here just how sophisticated the lunar modules actually were. These remarkable spacecraft – and I understandably get a little choked up here talking about this, because I am just so damn proud of our team of Nazi scientists – managed to make six perfect take-offs from the surface of the Moon! And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!


One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover. And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need.



By the way, I can’t possibly be the only one who is disappointed that we never followed up on that breakthrough folding-vehicle technology. If we had folding Moon buggies back in the early 1970s, then how far behind could folding automobiles have been had we chosen to stay the course? Had NASA’s pioneering vision been followed up, we could all be folding up our cars and tucking them away under our office desks. But as with all the Apollo technology, it existed only in that specific period of time and has now, sadly, been lost to the ages.




NASA has done something very odd, by the way, with the lunar module that it has on display for museum visitors to marvel at: it has staffed it with miniature astronauts wearing miniature space suits (the module may also be scaled slightly larger than the ‘real’ modules that allegedly landed on the Moon). I wonder why they would do that? I’m pretty sure that Buzz and Neil were of normal stature, so the only reason that I can think of that they would use miniature astronauts would be to portray the modules as larger than what they actually were. And in better condition too. Did they pick up the ones they sent to the Moon at a used car lot?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby ProfWag » 23 Jul 2013, 05:11

So him calling NASA engineers "nazis" doesn't raise a red flag with you?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Misha » 23 Jul 2013, 13:40

ProfWag wrote:So him calling NASA engineers "nazis" doesn't raise a red flag with you?


C'mon, ProfWag. I told you Dave was cynical and indulging in tongue and cheek lampooning. I'm sure Dave doesn't mean everyone working at NASA are Nazis. Frankly, we brought so many Nazis over under Project Overcast, Paper Clip, National Interest Project 88 and probably others not yet found. This nation utilized the Nazis' technology and intelligence in more ways than we can count. Let's keep it in perspective, please.

Like I said, please contact Dave McGowan if you have questions regarding his threads. I'm all for that.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby Arouet » 24 Jul 2013, 02:10

Misha wrote:Like I said, please contact Dave McGowan if you have questions regarding his threads. I'm all for that.


Misha, you called his article "spot on" so I think its fair to discuss it with you.

Misha, I may be willing to go buy one of those books you mentioned (provided they have a version compatible with my kobo) but before I spend actual money, am I going to be faced with yet another rant-filled discourse spending its time looking into motives and asking leading rhetorical questions without actually discussing these things in detail?

I know you're more interested in the socio-political circumstances that would motivate the goverment to do a hoax like that but that doens't interest me much. I'm wiling to stipulate that they had motive to do a hoax. I'm much more interested in whether they actually did do a hoax. I'm looking for someone who has done the research and not just asked rhetorical questions about how could they survive in the Van Allen belts but actually look into how NASA claims they dealt with the problem and criticising that. Not someone wondering alloud how they fit everything on the shuttle but looking at what NASA says they actually put on the shuttle and analysing it from that perspective.

Is that kind of thing in there? Which book do you think has the most of this kind of hard analysis in there? I can live with the rhetoric and the socio-political musings if it is also backed up by actual substantive discussion the technical issues involved.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest