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.
There are real conspiracies and they come to light. But some conspiracies are just fabrications by a few distrusting individuals. That's the problem you don't see.
Do you have a link to Collins' recanted claim or is it on the 25 minute video of Jarrah's hypocrisy he calls a rebuttal? Also, I've looked at both sources posted on the history of high speed video and neither one discusses the type of camera Collins was talking about. Did you find if when you did your fact-checking?
You will recall, Misha, that I did delve right into some of the materials you and sydney recommended and spent a good deal of time summarizing and critiquing a number of White videos. There was little to no appetite to discuss them. So I stopped.
It's all well and good to rant out a laundry list of issues, but if we want to get somewhere we need to get into some of these claims in more detail. There are a ton of possible topics on this subject and we're all of limited time, which is why I suggested picking individual subtopics and looking at them in more depth. But I seemed to be alone in being interested in that - and if we're not going to discuss it then this topic doesn't hold enough interest for me to keep on going just for my own edification. I'm not American, and even if I found out the moon landing was a hoax it would not change me life in any substantial way. My interest was having good discussion.
Indeed you tried and I respect that. However, Sydney has already done an excellent job of hitting many of these points to no avail. I at this point in the discussion find it futile to explore it further. Yes, something may stir me in the future and I might post. Also, my limburger statement was directed to science, congress and the political systems in general.
Moreover, I too would not be changed if WE found out the Apollo Moon program was hoaxed. In fact, I would be the first one to say - Ok, guys. We are all on solid footing on this topic. Gloating is for those with "large egos." Let's look at what else has been spoon-fed us.
that's not really saying very much, really. what are some really cool conspiracies that came to light then? the only real conspiracy by your definition is one that is discovered and completely exposed from end to end then? come on, give me a break, that's not a defining feature of a conspiracy, now is it? you mean the only real murders are the ones that are completely solved by the police, and no-one ever gets away with murder? the pseudoscep logic is really starting to slip now, and they only have platitudes left... if a tree falls over in the forest and there's no-one to hear it, is there a sound? if a conspiracy occurs and there is no-one to uncover it, ....???
there is a link to the second rebuttal in the little pop-up thingy in the first few seconds of the rebuttal I posted.
what does it matter what sort of camera Collins is/was talking about if he's dead wrong in his assertions and he is not taking into account technologies that DID exist at that time? I don't understand your question.
I think you can see where a lot of the Apollo budget went, apart from handing out large bribes to people -- expensive Hollywood video equipment and expertise... and to think it was already a joke by the time they made James Bond's 'Diamonds Are Forever' in 1971!
What does it matter? I'll tell you why it matters. Because Jarrah claims that Collins "retracted" his statement, yet I can find no reference to that other than Jarrah telling us he did. How do I know that Jarrah is telling the truth and not just trying to feed you a line of crap? Not saying he didn't retract it, but I sure would like to see it from someone other than Jarrah himself. It appears that you would believe Jarrah if he told you that he built a snowman at the equator. I, on the other hand, prefer to read evidence and their sources. It's much more reliable than youtube videos and un-referenced statements.
Do you not find it hypocritical of Jarrah that he makes a statement in the first couple of minutes (and spends some time on it) that Collins has only been around 30 years and wasn't into film during the moon landings, yet Jarrah wasn't even BORN yet? I mean, just why in the hell do people put any faith into what this guy says? We're talking about someone who uses legos and car headlights to try to prove some point about asphalt. C'mon y'all. Really? (sorry really?--no reference to your good name intended).
Except that it wasn't "to no avail." The points that I picked up on were not random. They were specific points made by both you and Sydney, and specific videos referred to by both you and Sydney as evidence of your position. Several times in fact and quoted at length. One of them was cited by one of you as one of you (can't recall which) as one of your key reasons for believing that it was a hoax. And there was absolutely no appetite for discussing them.
Where's the spoon feeding? These are intricate subjects with reams of material by a plethora of people of a variety of speciaties and backgrounds. It's not like we've just been looking at newsreels!
Of course we've got to be skeptical about government. I don't think there's anyone who trusts the government 100%. But not because the government is evil. But because its run by people. They are not supermen. They are not evil geniuses. They are people who are flawed. People who screw up. Some people who have nefarious goals and others with benevolent ones. Some who are brilliant, others dense. Some who are cynical and jaded, others who are ideological and wide eyed. It is a massive group of people. It is inefficient and lumbering.
And yes there are going to be holes in the "official story". At times, it may be because of a nefarious plot or cover up. But even in absence of such plots there are going to be holes. Why? Because of all of the above. There are holes in EVERY story. Imagine trying to reconstruct one day of your life, and tell the story of it. How many holes do you think there would be? There are all sorts of reasons for holes - some nefarious, others innocent - some deliberate, others by sheer incompetence. I repeat this often but all things being equal incompetence is always more likely than deliberate planning, and cover-up of that incompetence is always more likely than a brilliant plan.
You may think that I'm presenting this as a defence of government. I'm not. It's about trying to have realistic expectations. The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they assume a competence level far beyond the average fare. I see no reason to attribute to government that level of competence.
it's not hypocritical because White is not making an claims to authority based on seniority or experience, etc. In terms of previous technologies, they are arguably therefore at the same starting point, and Collins' claim to working in an industry for 30 years is possibly a misleading one as an assertion of possessing relevant knowledge, although he may have learnt more about video technology than White in that period. That is another matter though.
Collins appears to have made various concessions as (literally) highlighted by White early in the 'Re: for jarrah' piece. There is still something of an open question and argument as to whether suitable video and film technology existed at that time or not. There are also some suggestions made by White that frame rates were different than advertised by NASA, that the film size was different, and so on. A fair bit hinges on the possibility of whether certain sequences could be pre-recorded or were live feeds. There is no doubt in my mind that NASA and more broadly the military have always had access to cutting edge technology -- and sometimes advanced technology that no-one has commercially -- and a large budget to play with. That means if they had an expansive video spoofing unit they would have been up with the latest gadgets and technical capabilities.
There are a number of key reasons for believing it was a hoax, Arou, as spelt out many, many times already. These include:
- low likelihood of 6 successful missions without significant mission-compromising life-endangering engineering failure somewhere along the line, not just a fender coming off ferchrissakes
- comparison with space shuttle deaths using 80s/90s technology only going into low earth orbit
- all real manned space efforts since then by any country have only gone into low earth orbit
- likelihood of achieving successful 'flipping' of modules in space on the way out and re-docking after leaving the moon's surface 6 times over is very low; likelihood of missing rendezvous between LEM and command module high
- unnatural physics demonstrated in the docking maneouvre video which suggests it's a fake with models being pivoted
- extra-long lift-off sequence from the moon is also wrong -- lunar surface rotates under the camera for too long at the same height, when the rocket was going straight up, and even if it wasn't going straight up it should have been ascending. shadows are also unnatural in the sequence like a rotating model.
- lack of stability of a lander with a single large engine -- centre of gravity would be thrown off if an astronaut even moved an arm, possibly causing a crash. video of Neil Armstrong ejecting from a steel frame test craft before it crashed. this was probably the time NASA started thinking it was all too hard.
- JFK's silly promise to the world to get a manned mission to the moon by the end of the decade, driven by a fear of the Soviet space program. many impassioned speeches to Congress outlining his fears prior to that. fear of weaponising inner space most likely.
- likely radiation risks throughout the mission, particularly around solar flares and the van allen belt
- possibility of high speed collision in transit or on the surface with meteors
- too much clowning around on the moon given the seriousness of the mission and its dangers - space suit puncture, strikes by meteorites travelling at 20,000 mph with no atmosphere, etc
- there was a massive solar flare, the largest that century, during the Apollo 15 mission I believe it was, with no harm to the craft or crew
- clear video cutting and audio overdubbing where a continuous feed is claimed
- batteries seem unlikely to have lasted for the duration of the mission to run a/c
- temperatures - risk of astronauts being fried along with radiation risk
- Kodak film would have melted at moon temperatures
- there are suggestions the Saturn V was underpowered to even launch into space
- wrong exhaust colour from the lander rockets; Saturn V exhaust seems to be for effect also, and could not have provided sufficient propulsion
- thick moon dust (regolith) still present under the lander
- landing sensor rods pointing in the wrong direction
- lack of wheel marks going up to the rover in various photos
- stereoscopic analysis of pics strongly suggests backdrops and projections are being used
- use of backlighting for effect
- picture of a light bulb in the sun
- earth is too small in pics to be real, and shows evidence of insertion, use of blacking out and touching up etc
- pics are too good given the way cameras were used, on top of the problem of film melting etc
- lack of room in modules for operations
- too small hatchway to move between modules wearing a spacesuit
- the present day response from a NASA rep when a researcher asked to measure the size of the hatchway -- the immediate bum's rush from the facility and a nasty goodbye message
- other anomalies in the film with detailed analysis, e.g. in one the photographer must have been about 2 feet above the head of the astronaut, difficult to do without a ladder or scaffold
- no stars whatsoever in pics, not even dimly -- suggests use of sets, blacking out and need only for a spotlight 'sun' in faking it
- evasiveness and revealing slip of the tongue by Mike Collins in trying to explain the lack of stars to the world's media on 'return'
- different topography on hadley mount vs unmanned lunar surveyor pics
- odd similarity between hadley mount pics and a mountain range in hawaii the astronauts had visited
- the totally unnecessary antarctic trip -- looking for meteorites to pass off as moon rocks?
- eerie weathered middle ground and backgrounds in pics with sharp rocky relief in foregrounds
- all the pics have a foreground, then a sharp line, then a background
- the background mountains have signs of long term weathering like 'old' mountain ranges on earth which is impossible on the moon without wind, rain and glaciers -- should be jagged
- all the pics were shot in the same direction towards the same mountains even tho the astronauts were moving around the equipment in different directions and should have taken 360 degree shots -- obviously much easier when you have a set and a backdrop than attempting 360 degree views
- wire flashes in the videos suggestng harnesses to simulate weightlessness
- oxygenated blue light in the module while supposedly halfway to the moon. earth appears in window at close range. focus issues.
- use of unusual trucks with small trinagular windows where the astronauts were trained for some reason to be driven around commentating on what they could see out the window. mentions of 'orange soil' on the supposed moon landing which correspond to desert soil
- the ridiculous 'bear rock' shot on Apollo 17 that is clearly a composite
- the 'moving LEM' on Apollo 17 that moves closer and further away from the nearest mountain range for effect
- numerous other problems with a large number of the pics and videos, e.g. duplication of terrain when supposedly in different places, re-use of footage, etc
- grainy 'video of a video' presentation to the world's media on the 'first moon walk'
- discovery of large-scale models of the moon and landscape that had been created perfect for faking approach and departure shots
- apparent claims of an airline pilot who says he saw a module being ejected from a C-4 over the ocean -- TBV
- lack of past and present research into actual radiation levels in the van allen belts and in outer space -- clearly no measurements were taken on the apollo missions, and in fact how could you if you never left low earth orbit, assuming you even reached that height with the underpowered Saturn V, or assuming there were even astronauts aboard any of the launches -- meaning that that research still needs to be done by NASA today
- convenient re-use of all the 'training' equipment and landscapes to make a fake landing set -- use of spring harnesses, lunar landscape, cranes, desert settings, etc etc -- you cannot tell the 'necessary training' apart from a fake landing, and the money you spent does double duty to create the hoax.
- possible use of Saturn V development to advance ICBM technology when the public was probably not going to accept the expenditure any other way
- use of Apollo space program as a feelgood foil next to the Vietnam war -- Apollo program conveniently finished and was truncated as soon as the Vietnam war was over and troops withdrawn.
- petrified wood passed off as moon rock. Jarrah White's analysis of rock make-up and presentation of ESA findings suggests fake moon rocks, possibly drawn from Antarctica and Western Australia.
- the psychology of the astronauts when challenged in the present day is just wrong -- if anything, this was about 33% of the evidence I needed to come to a conclusion, apart from all the foregoing
- footage found by Bart Sibrel suggesting faked lunar module activity, shown to actual astronauts. the 'we were only passengers' line. mike collins' son threatening to call the CIA to 'wax' Sibrel (note no threat to call the police for any reason such as trespass)
and several other things not listed above. against all that we only have the word of NASA that they went with no convincing proof. One way, you have no fatalities and 100% successful missions. The other way you have risk and a strong likelihood of fatalities, accidents, radiation poisoning, bad press, plus it's just a great deal harder and more expensive. much easier to take the tax money and pay yourself a fortune and not go! same result.
So NASA gets an 'E' for Effort for faking it, I was tempted to award an 'F' for Fail.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 29 May 2013, 13:39, edited 1 time in total.
that's ridiculous, Arou. much of the evidence and bloopers are in video and pic form, as that is the chief evidence to prove a mission ever went ahead, and you now conveniently claim you have a problem with viewing videos and pics. well, you'll have to find a proxy to argue and analyse for you. you seem to have no such conceptual problems with analysing facts and figures around radiation, although it's hard to make an argument when strong research does not exist, or with reading and writing. so your only weak point where you have to beg off is in the important area of analysing pictorial evidence? I know what a judge would say about an excuse like that in a courtroom from a defendant...
The specific points on Apollo to the best of my knowledge was made by Sydney. He indeed has done the heavy lifting with the details which I am very familiar with. As for government bureaucracy and its failings is something Michael Parenti talks about in depth. Google him and listen to some of his lectures. Also, to understand the mindset of bureaucracy I found a great book that outlines everything you have mentioned above but minus the happenstance. Not to digress from this thread. The best way I can illustrate the Apollo program is by looking for examples which fit within Policy. Policy dictates how bureaucracies are to be run. Apollo was a bureaucracy.
Please read "Classified Woman" by Sibel Edmonds. There are elements within this book which will help us understand the system and thus can be applied to the Apollo program as well.
Sydney, well done on your bullet points.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests