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.
"Is it not obvious after 22 pages that cogent arguments were made why it's highly unlikely the entire moon missions could have been faked. Why rehash what's already been hashed out, not just here mind you, but on other sites detailing why the Moon Landing Hoax isn't a hoax."
"If other members want to trod down that road again with you that is their choice."
Hold the phone, Abe! It is NOT obvious that cogent arguments by the Apollo "We went to the Moon" were made. Moreover, Really slips and says "it's highly unlikely the entire moon missions could have been faked!" Really, which lies do we accept in its entirety?
What has been hashed out is that there are some people who do not agree with the Apollo record and there are some that do. Gauss, if you decide to post on Apollo I will read it.
A few living things did orbit the moon first, including turtles and flies.
None of which are mammals.
thousands of subcontractors doing a job somewhere else for for money hardly counts as an insider.
giving key people each the equivalent of $2M today out of the Apollo funding shuts them up real quick.
appeals to 'national security' seem to work well as well. and there seem to be a lot of mysterious spooks on the payroll of the FBI and the CIA living some kind of shadow existence who suddenly pop up at key events all suited up. who are those people, exactly, and what are they prepared to do for their paypacket? with no other skills to trade in the labour marketplace except duplicity and obeying orders.
turtles have something like 600x the radiation resistance of people.
the basics of animal testing in medicine of course is that you have to get closer and closer to homo sapiens in physiology to have credible test results -- mammals at least are required -- mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, chimps, etc.
the deep space animal testing thesis was expounded by Ralph Rene years ago, of course.
I have no idea where you produced this reference, but it still has little bearing on whether or not humans landed on the moon.
Oh yes, of course. I considered Ralph Rene (and your boy Jarrah White) to be a top scientists in the field of astrophysics. Or not.
How about a credible, peer reviewed reference on why humans could not survive Van Allen's belts? Please?
Now that would be something, ProfWag. I would love to see a peer review by an unbiased science and academic community who depend so much on government grants. If there is any out there which have been written by those who question the Apollo record please let me know.
So now you've expanded the number of people involved in the hoax from just those who worked at NASA and other top government officials in the '60s/'70s to all the universities, astrophysicists, and geophysicists across the globe because they get may get grants? And that these cover ups have been ongoing for 40 years? C'mon Misha, you're smarter than that. There are many research articles written and posted in peer reviewed journals since the beginning of space exploration--none of which contradict that we went to the moon. To say that they are invalid because their university gets government grants sends a strong signal that that you wouldn't believe we went to the moon unless you went there yourself and saw the original lunar module.
I've seen the reference, you might like to google it for yourself, you know, that thing Winston allegedly can't do. It has a great deal of bearing, because a 'successful' mission by a turtle which has been chosen to be least likely to be dead on return to the earth for PR reasons gives you virtually NO useful scientific information on how humans will fare in space, so they supposedly jumped from turtles to people and cut out all intervening species knowing full well that there are shedloads of radiation up there and that the astronauts could die within days, months or a few years for all they knew, again not good for PR purposes. "We killed our astronauts to be the first on the moon. They were expendable. God bless America."
And wow, they sacrificed a few flies, that must have cut a lot of animal protectionists up. And contribute enormously to our knowledge base.
When NASA are doing the most 'research' into cis-lunar radiation and their top guy keeps changing his story before, during and after the supposed manned missions, you have to question the merits of some alleged research and alleged findings. I would like to see independent research from the ESA and the Russians before I accept any results from NASA on this particular topic. Further, it seems little by way of measurement has been done by probes, etc, and for some reason no realistic instruments were taken up on the alleged manned missions, they just wore 'personal Geiger counters' or some such nonsense. Along with their phasic ray guns.
There ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space
No animals have left earth orbit heights, below the van Allen belts, apparently ever, let alone returned for study. As per the premise of the 'they didn't go' researchers, that no person has flown through the substantial thickness of the belts or into deep space. Similarly, a perusal of the wiki article suggests no animal has done it either or returned for followup study. I am willing to be corrected in case one or two species have been lobbed through the belts and returned. Certainly no mammals!!!???
It is also very interesting to note the massive rate of failure of sub-orbital animal experiments by the US throughout the 1950s, with a huge rate of crashes killing the animals. Remember the US just stole V-2 technology from the Germans by confiscating rocket engines and recruiting Wernher von Braun who was actually far from the best rocket scientist the Nazis had. And yet we are being asked to believe that within a decade the US had worked out how to deposit 3 heavy humans on the moon 6 times over with a perfect landing each time and take off again and land in the earth's ocean with an amazing degree of accuracy also compared with real Russian landings which were frequently dozens or hudreds of miles off. The US story doesn't bear scrutiny once you start digging into the real world detail, much easier to fake it in Hollywood than do the real missions! The evidence presented by researchers doing stereoscopic analyses of alleged moon photos that show a backdrop of mountains only tens of metres away, faked up pics with the earth the wrong size in the sky and mountains getting bigger and smaller relative to LEMs, all camera shots pointing the same way to the same mountains, the technical unlikelihood of performing 6 missions with 1960s technology without a flaw or hiccup worth talking about, the cavalier way the 'astronauts/nots' danced around the moon falling over repeatedly while being in supposedly extreme danger, the question of unresearched radiation levels and potential and unmeasured danger, a number of glitches with audio and video suggesting later overdubbing, the existence of large scale models of the moon and its surface with no other purpose except for special effects tricks, etc, etc, call in to question the integrity of the United States of America's supposed moon missions. It's as simple as that. Sorry to the 'Apollogists' here who are into evidence denial.
No, ProfWag. Not expanded, but a contraction of information. Again, I cannot entreat enough that to go along is get along. Can you honestly say that you, a smart man too, have not experienced information that went against your convictions? Did you ever at any point went along knowing that the bureaucratic "invisible electrified fence" would shock your system against the prevailing dogma?
And yes. I am simple man from Missouri. Show me....
I'd say there's sod all 'scientific papers about going to the moon' out there, except perhaps a few pieces of drivel by stooge NASA scientists. It was a wild west excursion. where are the results of all the so-called 'experiments' they took with them? (and why are they studying mexican jumping beans and similar in space even now?) there's a handful of schmo geologists who are actually attempting to study the supposed moon rocks, one of which was a piece of petrified wood. the rest were probably meteorites. apparently NASA hands out 'samples' on request of these meteorites cut down to the size of a sugar cube for study, presumably so you can't see the meteorite burn marks from atmospheric entry. ESA probe-based spectrographic analyses of moon rocks and dust contradict the NASA claims. Jarrah White has done some good analysis there, despite Arouet's frequent and convenient claims that he just doesn't trust White's observations. You would obviously be wasting your scientific career studying meteorites believing they came from the moon. NASA may have a few shill 'experts' out there on call if a statement is ever required for the press.
but post in a list of any length of scientific papers about going to the moon by all means, prof. how many papers are there about going to the ISS?
Here are four sources written by academics from outside the U.S. All are a bit different in their origin and topic, but are not affiliated with NASA. I already know you will critique it and give some excuse how it doesn't support us going to the moon. Unfortunately, I'm unable to hold your hand and help you to think independently. With all of the evidence out there that supports an actual moon landing, there is little, if any, evidence you will accept that could change your mind.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7Q49AA ... ls&f=false
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2 ... 393210.htm
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloa ... 0631_0.pdf
http://business.highbeam.com/136942/art ... -crust-age
These people revel in their conspiracies believing of themselves as independent thinkers. They remind me of certain other people that know the Earth was visited by ancient astronauts.They argue, look at this piece of [so called] evidence or this piece over here yet they never have any direct evidence, it's always playing connect the dots were there are no dots. You've done your best PW to help these three out of the rabbit hole, but they are so far down in it that even with a compass and handholding no one could lead them out. Frankly, it's beyond my understanding why accepting we put men on the Moon is so troubling. It won't change their lives if they do. It won't change the world. It won't make any difference at all. So relax PW and let them think they know something the rest of us do not.
Good article to read. Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory
http://images.derstandard.at/2012/02/22 ... 0Alive.pdf
that's all very nice, but how do these articles prove that any samples of rocks or regolith were returned by astronauts from the moon?
there are of course other possibilities that I am open to re the NASA hoax -- that either probes or some unpublicised manned mission indeed got to the moon and returned some samples -- just that all of the photography and film work starring the Apollo astronauts were faked, and the celebrity astronauts did not go. Apparently David Percy now somehow concedes that he thinks someone went to the moon, but does not go into specifics of who, when, how many times or indeed how at all. He stands by the charge that the video and photos that have been presented to us are faked, which is backed up by stereoscopic computer analysis, computer analysis of dark areas of the photos which have been touched up and had additions made, and various bloopers made by NASA in producing the pics, apart from countless pieces of circumstantial evidence as described in other threads over and over.
I am not sure how that appraisal of what history will one day tell us was an amazing cover-up and hoax by the US govt (unless it is suppressed forever) suggests a self-contradictory belief? It's more like unearthing the reality of a cover-up story of a murderer in the docks.
It is simply misleading to suggest that all I did was conveniently repeat that I don't trust White's observations. What I did was go through a number of his videos and critically evaluate them. I found what I considered holes and unjustified conclusions and stated explicitly what my problems were (and gave credit where it was due). I'm happy for someone to tell me why my critiques were unfounded but no one has bothered.
You would obviously be wasting your scientific career studying meteorites believing they came from the moon. NASA may have a few shill 'experts' out there on call if a statement is ever required for the press.
but post in a list of any length of scientific papers about going to the moon by all means, prof. how many papers are there about going to the ISS?[/quote]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests