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 » 10 Dec 2012, 06:58

ProfWag wrote:So all you did Syd was rehash the camera footage which I pointed out does nothing towards proving we didn't go to the moon. How about some evidence we didn't go? Oh, you don't have any eyewitnesses from the thousands involved at NASA who say it was a hoax or you don't have any mathematical or scientific data to show it was not possible? I didn't think so...

hilarious.

So when NASA comes clean to the world that they faked, let's see, 95% or 100% of all the stills and footage they've ever produced from the mission, and living astronauts are extremely evasive about whether they even went, and they can't explain how they got through the van Allen belts without any effects, we're supposed to take on faith that "someone" actually went and came back according to the mission statement? If they were prepared to create such a huge hoax, but now claim they went anyway, why would anyone of sound mind believe them? Emphasis on sound mind. It's like me saying I went to Hawaii for a vacation but really stayed at home and paid for a tanning bed, and showed a lot of faked up photos of Hawaii where I'm not in any of them. Why? Because I couldn't afford a vacation to Hawaii!!

FURTHER, if NASA were a person appearing in court as a witness, and they were repeatedly caught out in these kind of lies and hoaxes, they would immediately become what is known as an 'UNRELIABLE WITNESS' and all their testimony would be disregarded -- this is held to be a test of reasonableness in jurisprudent circles. However, ProgWag is lied to repeatedly by NASA and tells us we should still accept the hypothetical truth presented as fact, although it is not reasonable to do so by long established centuries-old judicial understandings of the reliability of evidence from witnesses. Apparently if a person lies on the stand and is known to be a habitual liar, they're a 'bad' person and deserve our calumny and possibly a jail sentence, but if a govt agency does it under orders of the executive, all those people are noble and exonerated. Do a little crime or perjure yourself and you're in trouble and didn't learn any moral lessons growing up, do a huge public crime and it's called governmentality and executive privilege.

FURTHER FURTHER, ProfWag has pretty well admitted here that all the stills and footage appear as though they might be faked, i.e. a reasonable person would accept those arguments. Somehow, illogically, he goes on to tell us that HE KNOWS they still went even though all of the evidence that has been presented to the public has been faked, and they would have been better off stopping at the hoax without spending a further dime on actual space travel, assuming it were even possible in physics and biology, which it isn't (or wasn't, and pretty much still isn't using a single rocket approach). Why would you go on to spend another fortune when you had already achieved your aim of psyching out your opponent in the Cold War and convincing everyone of your prowess by perpetrating an inexpensive hoax? SO HOW CAN PROFWAG 'KNOW' THAT THEY ACTUALLY WENT WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THEY DID? It's clearly an illogical assertion and fails all the rules of evidence, science and epistemology. However, it IS in the pseudoscep playbook as 'accepting the claims of authority figures rather than doing your own checking or scientific testing'. Just for the record.

EVIDENCE against anyone actually stepping foot on the moon or ever leaving earth orbit in history includes the airline pilot reported by Bill Kaysing who saw a C5 plane dropping a module out at sea with the 3 orange parachutes of a LEM opening on the date of splashdown. FURTHER EVIDENCE includes the lack of steam by the LEMs shot on video landing in the ocean when they should have still been superheated from re-entry. Now, today, we're back to orbiting the earth under the van Allen belts, whether in the space shuttle or on the ISS, and safety research on radiation in the van Allen belts and in open space remains to be done by NASA's own admission.

With reference to the 'mathematical and scientific data', Jarrah White has gone out of his way to analyse radiation levels in the van Allen belt, and solar flare and solar wind data, and his analysis is available for viewing at http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html Actual astronauts who supposedly went to the moon report no untoward effects or visual effects while travelling through the belts, whereas we now know they would have seen a lot of retinal images from space shuttle accounts, so their testimony is highly suspect. The moon rock analysis conducted by White also suggests the moon rocks are faked and that the mineral type of dust and rocks you would expect to be in abundance from the moon from spectrographic unmanned probe analyses was not returned in samples. However, many of the samples match petrified wood or terrestrial rocks while others may be harvested meteorites. A simple undoctored snap from Hubble would serve to show whether there was a manned landing site -- however, NASA has already been caught out doctoring pictures from orbiting lunar probes. It's tricky dealing with unreliable witnesses, isn't it?

The preliminary astrophysics calculations carried out by NASA might have worked, apart from the underpowered Saturn V and radiation risks. But there was a huge risk of accident and mission failure, a risk unacceptable to the administration. We have seen what has happened to the space shuttle program when risks became reality.

I think the burden of proof is now on ProfWag to find even one living or dead astronaut, known or unknown, who actually left earth orbit and passed through the van Allen belts and went anywhere near the moon, ever, with some convincing proof. There is currently not one legitimate photo or video of the moon's surface taken by a human being. The LEM blueprints are all 'lost'. The batteries were not capable of supporting life and air-con for long enough. There were no solar cells fitted for supplementary power. The hatches were too small to pass through for a suited astronaut in the LEM design, and cockpit spaces were too cramped. The rover folded wheelbase was too long to have packed away under the LEM. Redocking in moon orbit at 4,000 mph was next to impossible, and the videos are clearly faked. Landing a LEM with a single central rocket on the moon has centre of gravity problems that means that if an astronaut so much as moved an arm or leg they would have crashed on descent. There was completely inadequate radiation shielding. The Saturn V was underpowered for the job. Meteors fly into the moon constantly at 20,000 mph with no protection. 6 supposedly completely successful missions from go to whoa with never an accident with a different cast of characters every time. The Hubble telescope and a telescope in Chile are both capable of providing evidence of landing sites if only they are turned to the correct locations -- but nobody ever does.

And 'moon rocks' that turn out to be petrified wood or gathered from the Western Australian desert don't count as evidence. Oh, and NASA 'accidentally erased' over 700 BOXES worth of supposed lunar recordings -- after all, computer audio analysis is getting better and better these days, isn't it?

With reference to the 'thousands' of people at NASA, that has already been covered over and over in many posts. Compartmentalisation and subcontractor orders of components easily disguise a faked program. Key people in the know were paid off simply by drawing down from the huge Apollo budget, as after all the technology never had to actually work, so plenty of money would have been saved on building a space-worthy craft. Launch control and mission control were separated between Florida and Houston, a puzzling split that makes no sense operationally -- space shuttle missions have a single control centre. However, having mission control in Houston reduced the number of people who had to be in the know, the Florida people only knew that a rocket had taken off successfully. Whether the mission control people were actors or were being fed a realistic simulation, I don't know. Realistic simulations were possible, and faked feeds from cislunar satellites were also possible.

Image
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 10 Dec 2012, 16:06, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Dec 2012, 14:59

ProfWag wrote:So all you did Syd was rehash the camera footage which I pointed out does nothing towards proving we didn't go to the moon. How about some evidence we didn't go? Oh, you don't have any eyewitnesses from the thousands involved at NASA who say it was a hoax or you don't have any mathematical or scientific data to show it was not possible? I didn't think so...


Or the short answer which addresses your noble concerns in their entirety:

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Dec 2012, 17:26

Interesting presentation, especially concerning the plasticity of pseudoscep 'logic':

"Bart Winfield Sibrel has been making moving image productions for thirteen years. His national credits include work for NBC, CNN, The Nashville Network (TNN), The Learning Channel (TLC), and the Discovery Channel. His awards from the American Motion Picture Society include Best Cinematography, Best Editing, and two Top Ten awards. He has also won Videomaker's Magazine's Best Drama award. Did the Apollo astronauts really walk on the moon? Sadly, the answer is no. Only 10% of the population agrees. Investigative journalist Bart Sibrel will explain why, as well as why he is sure we never actually went. Classroom experience with this topic at the college level has proven extremely successful. Students are quickly drawn to analyze this objectively. This is the ultimate critical thinking exercise in that it involves analysis at many levels, including physics, political science, history and psychology. A portion of Mr. Sibrel's presentation to your audience will be a guided tour through his interviews and confrontations with nine Apollo astronauts: William Anders (Apollo 8), Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11), Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11), Michael Collins (Apollo 11), Alan Bean (Apollo 12), Ed Mitchell (Apollo 14), Al Worden (Apollo 15), John Young (Apollo 16) and Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17). Your audience will be able to see the astronauts react first hand and evaluate their answers to some very pointed questions. Mr. Sibrel will also discuss the scientific and political aspects of the hoax."
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby ProfWag » 10 Dec 2012, 22:41

Evidence that we went:
1. Recent footage from Lunar missions shw the remains of the moon debris.
2. Every scientist who has examined the hundreds of pounds of moonrocks say they came from the moon. Show me evidence from any academic who has exhamined them who says the astronauts did not bring them back.
3. Scientists around the globe use the laser mirrors that were placed on the moon and they continue to use them for measurements. Show me any explanation as to how these mirrors got there without Apollo astronauts.

Quite frankly, the evidence that we went to the moon is more solid than most any other "conspiracy" out there.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 11 Dec 2012, 05:50

Misha wrote: I wonder if you have gone through all of Jarrah White's moonfaker.com videos?

I have gone through some, but stopped after watching him try to explain shadows on the moon using the headlights of a car and leggos. May I ask what part of his credentials you find compelling enough to make him knowledgable enough to discuss the extremely complex details of the Apollo space program?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Dec 2012, 06:12

ProfWag wrote:I have gone through some, but stopped after watching him try to explain shadows on the moon using the headlights of a car and leggos.


How on earth did I miss this one??? :D
I love leggo videos.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby Misha » 11 Dec 2012, 09:37

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote: I wonder if you have gone through all of Jarrah White's moonfaker.com videos?

I have gone through some, but stopped after watching him try to explain shadows on the moon using the headlights of a car and leggos. May I ask what part of his credentials you find compelling enough to make him knowledgable enough to discuss the extremely complex details of the Apollo space program?


As for credentials I find Jarrah extremely smart, articulate and thorough on his research. If you won't go through his videos and read the other authors how can we begin to have a debate? ProfWag, I fear we are just going to go around in circles.

By the way, I think you failed to understand his leggo experiment. He was illustrating the difference in the moon's and earth's albedo.

How's your hand, by the way? Make sure you keep it open as best as possible when you sleep at night. This will help blood flow and healing.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Dec 2012, 10:26

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote: I wonder if you have gone through all of Jarrah White's moonfaker.com videos?

I have gone through some, but stopped after watching him try to explain shadows on the moon using the headlights of a car and leggos. May I ask what part of his credentials you find compelling enough to make him knowledgable enough to discuss the extremely complex details of the Apollo space program?

Any old excuse... so it's business as usual....

Anyway, weren't the LEMs made of Lego? I understand it's very rugged, airtight and radiation-resistant...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Dec 2012, 10:52

ProfWag wrote:Evidence that we went:
1. Recent footage from Lunar missions show the remains of the moon debris.


Are you talking about the orbiting probe photos? An analysis of the photography appears to show photoshopping -- in particular, the ground evidence from the putative Apollo missions shows a north-south orientation for equipment, but the supposed 'probe photos' show an east-west orientation. Fake tracks and blast craters have been inserted -- after all, 2 Apollo missions both denied lealving any blast craters whatsoever under the 10,000lb thrust LEMs, and lunar rovers apparently sometimes leave no tracks at all! NASA seem to be making repeated mistakes with their hoax.

We are still waiting for the Chilean VLT or the Hubble telescope to be pointed at the moon to demonstrate the sites. Nothing from the VLT since 2002, and NASA steadfastly refuses to point the Hubble telescope in anywhere near that direction.

Jarrah White makes a very good point re the evidential standard required to satisfy any reasonable person of the trip -- he insists that he be allowed to view the sites from earth from an optical telescope -- only then will he be satisfied. This would appear to be a very good evidential test that cannot be photoshopped. Pseudosceps with their constant pseudoscientific demands and poor experimental methods take note. The other test he will accept is a seat on a manned lunar landing for I think it's $150 million, where he will be able to both check at least one site and find out just how harmful van Allen and solar radiation is in person -- dying of radiation sickness would be worth the trip of a lifetime regardless. When you think about it, these are pretty much the only tests worth talking about. Assuming NASA hasn't tried to crash-land some space junk up there with a probe just in case.

ProfWag wrote:2. Every scientist who has examined the hundreds of pounds of moonrocks say they came from the moon. Show me evidence from any academic who has examined them who says the astronauts did not bring them back.


There's plenty of published evidence, and I've already linked to a source of further info in a previous post. Supremely lazy and diversionary again, another pseudoscep play, it gets tiring. A number of things seem to have happened -- meteorites taken from Antarctica, rocks taken from WA, other basalts from elsewhere -- which are therefore no different than rocks on earth, and have lead to some erroneous and false theorising by some geos about how the moon formed etc, attempts at scientific theories which unfortunately can be dismissed out of hand due to shameless political hoaxing by the US.

The basic analysis and further links at http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html

Very few geos have even looked at the rocks, and NASA deliberately chips them down and supplies them as sugar-cube sized to hide earth weathering effects and scorching from meteorites entering the earth's atmosphere -- they have ablated the top millimetre and dried them in kilns in some cases. As we know, one was a piece of petrified wood, so ProfWag's claim is blown out of the water right away with that one instance -- a geo examined the Dutch rock and proclaimed it to be worthless petrified wood, which it clearly is. Also, claims have been made that geos have been threatened by the usual heavies to keep silent about certain things. And you cannot trust NASA geos' reports for obvious reasons. Stop being lazy and go google it, I did.

Further, an 'independent' unmanned probe sent up by the ESA that threw up moon dust which was spectrographically analysed showed a very different breakdown of minerals than that claimed by the Apollo mission -- this is another scientific double-check on the chicanery of the US that they weren't expecting.

ProfWag wrote:3. Scientists around the globe use the laser mirrors that were placed on the moon and they continue to use them for measurements. Show me any explanation as to how these mirrors got there without Apollo astronauts.


There is a Russian mirror placed there by probe. Maybe they prefer to use that. It's also possible to bounce a laser signal directly off the moon with no mirror and get a return signal. Maybe a US probe put one up there later, like the Russians. It's clearly not a home project to design a directional laser and perform this test, only a few installations in the world have the hardware and software -- maybe whenever one particular US astronomy 'demonstrates' the return signal they have custom-written software that fakes the co-ordinates and return signal strength -- I do computer interfacing and write scientific software all the time, it's just as easy to fake a return signal and make up a time randomised slightly about a mean or based on the time of year and position of the moon as it is to do the real experiment -- in fact, it's more likely to work 100% of the time than if you fake it than with real gear and a real signal -- the hardware and software is not transparent to observers, it's compiled code that is run by an operator. You can fake it a million ways. Fails a rigorous scientific test of evidence once again.

ProfWag wrote:Quite frankly, the evidence that we went to the moon is more solid than most any other "conspiracy" out there.


Clearly, from the above, it's not. All the video and stills appear to have been faked. Doesn't leave much room for credibility. Perhaps you should start by trying to identify which ones haven't been faked or which of the missions actually went. It seems they actually got lazier and lazier and cheaper and cheaper and more risk averse as hoaxing got easier and the public lost interest, so they didn't even launch astronauts off the earth towards the end, and they just filmed splashdowns by dropping modules out of C5 aeroplanes.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby ProfWag » 12 Dec 2012, 04:04

Misha wrote:
As for credentials I find Jarrah extremely smart, articulate and thorough on his research. If you won't go through his videos and read the other authors how can we begin to have a debate? ProfWag, I fear we are just going to go around in circles.

Appearing smart, articulate, and thorough does not make someone an expert in the science of spaceflight.
Secondly, that's my point Misha! If you won't read what the true experts say, then we can't have a debate. You and Syd's mind are already made up and there is nothing that I can sway to change that. Similarly, after reading several of Jarrah's articles and videos, my mind is made up as well and it will require something that hasn't already been presented to further the debate.

And thanks for asking, yes, my hand hurts like hell. I try to keep it elevated and open, but it hasn't been easy.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Misha » 12 Dec 2012, 04:42

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:
As for credentials I find Jarrah extremely smart, articulate and thorough on his research. If you won't go through his videos and read the other authors how can we begin to have a debate? ProfWag, I fear we are just going to go around in circles.

Appearing smart, articulate, and thorough does not make someone an expert in the science of spaceflight.
Secondly, that's my point Misha! If you won't read what the true experts say, then we can't have a debate. You and Syd's mind are already made up and there is nothing that I can sway to change that. Similarly, after reading several of Jarrah's articles and videos, my mind is made up as well and it will require something that hasn't already been presented to further the debate.

And thanks for asking, yes, my hand hurts like hell. I try to keep it elevated and open, but it hasn't been easy.


Sorry, ProfWag. I cannot speak for Sydney, Scepcop or anyone else. However, any "investigator/researcher worth their salt is always confronted with the standard dogma or public line put forth on questionable events. For me the dialectic, both pro and con, confronts the issue and forces me to reevaluate constantly. Is your dialectic in place? Have you truly taken the time to look with an open mind the other side's argument. It appears, no. So now, who's mind is made up?

When the hand heals enough. Very important you get a soft rubber ball and begin squeezing it to negate the effects of scar tissue. If you can't get a ball I'll get you a rubber room. Deal? (LOL)
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby Arouet » 12 Dec 2012, 06:51

Allright: why don't we pick one element from the moon debate and look into it in more detail?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 12 Dec 2012, 09:16

There aren't any 'true experts' you can trust in this, and even when relatively well-meaning, 'experts' have been shown to be wrong time and time again in history. I say this to question ProfWag's discourse about 'expertism', not to address which of the supposed 'experts' he is referencing re Apollo, which is none of them. He hasn't looked anything up, he's just sitting back and trolling. I made my mind up when I looked at the evidence, the same evidence is arrayed before ProfWag but apparently he can't see anything in it.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby ProfWag » 12 Dec 2012, 22:27

SydneyPSIder wrote:There aren't any 'true experts' you can trust in this, and even when relatively well-meaning, 'experts' have been shown to be wrong time and time again in history. I say this to question ProfWag's discourse about 'expertism', not to address which of the supposed 'experts' he is referencing re Apollo, which is none of them. He hasn't looked anything up, he's just sitting back and trolling. I made my mind up when I looked at the evidence, the same evidence is arrayed before ProfWag but apparently he can't see anything in it.

Okay, then let's just believe what Jarrah White says and disrepect the thousands upon thousands of academics who have actually studied this subject hands on and throw their conclusions out the window.

And if you truly believe you have studied this subject with an open mind and still believe in the conspiracy as set forth by the evidence you have presented, then there is nothing to discuss. When I was initially presented with Jarrah's theory (among other people's as well,) I did pretty thorough research on the subject as it fascinated me at the time. After forming my opinion, I find no reason to look at the same old arguments as nothing new has come out in many years. But really, Jarrah's points don't even appear to be sound enough to have him listed on the wiki page under moon hoax theorists.

However, If you wish to take one piece of your evidence and discuss it as Misha suggested, I will be happy to as long as it doesn't involve leggos...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Misha » 12 Dec 2012, 23:38

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?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest