View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

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: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 30 May 2013, 09:59

SydneyPSIder wrote: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.


I didn't say I have problems viewing videos and pics - I said I don't have much of an aptitude when it comes to analysing them. Pretty sure I've said similar before on this forum. It has nothing to do with convenience. Prior to getting into the discussions here I'd never looked into any of this stuff before, so its hardly that I picked radiation because I thought it was weak and stay away from the pics because I think they are strong evidence of a hoax- I started this thing equally ignorant of all the arguments.

You seem to be suggesting that I went after the low hanging fruit. What I did was look over the topics you listed as key to your conclusions and focussed on the ones I found most interesting. But make no mistake - I chose from your topics, I didn't come up with them on my own! Are you changing your position on how key those topics are to you?

well, you'll have to find a proxy to argue and analyse for you.


Why would I have to do that? If someone else wants to engage you on those topics I certainly won't stand in the way and will read the posts with interest. I don't have an opinion on those pics one way or the other.

you seem to have no such conceptual problems with analysing facts and figures around radiation,


Right, as I said. I don't get the photography stuff. I can get the other stuff. What's so hard to understand about that? Oh, I'm sure if I worked hard enough I could figure it out - but the other thing is I really don't have an interest in that. I do find the other topics I discussed interesting however. Why one over the other? Who knows? We don't pick what we find interesting.

I participate in these forums for interest and fun - why would I delve into topics that hold no interest for me and that I'll have to work extra hard at to figure out?

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...


A judge would want to hear from someone who says they are not qualified to give an opinion?

I haven't approached these topics from one point of view or another. I tried in going over those topics to treat them as objective as possible. I gave White credit where due and criticism where deserved. I typed as I did research - what you saw was me looking into things for the first time, untainted by prior knowledge. You saw my opinions forming as they formed.


Look: there are so many aspects to these conspiracies that its impractical for me to discuss them all even if I found them all facinating - so why wouldn't I focus on the parts I'm interested in? And when they were things that you put forward as reasons for believing in the hoax, why wouldn't you want to delve into them with me? What changed from before I posted about them to after? As I said, from the beginning you thought they were pretty damn important!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 30 May 2013, 10:11

Misha wrote: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.


What I tried to do was look at some specific issues from multiple sides and using as objective sources as possible. That's the kind of discussion I'm interested in. When you package things in a certain way, at first blush it can look convincing - but what you need to do is tear it down, and look at the premises - are they true? If true, do the conclusions follow from the premises? Are the premises provided in the proper context? Are there other conclusions that are also supported by the same set of facts? Are the facts presented objectively?

The problem with just approaching these from a talking points perspective is that you don't get into those. Talking points are about spin not substance.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Misha » 30 May 2013, 11:27

Arouet Wrote: "When you package things in a certain way, at first blush it can look convincing - but what you need to do is tear it down, and look at the premises - are they true? If true, do the conclusions follow from the premises? Are the premises provided in the proper context? Are there other conclusions that are also supported by the same set of facts? Are the facts presented objectively?"

Arouet, I am not here to package things. Far from it. What I am trying to illustrate is cause and effect weighed against historical differences in the record. I am a firm believer that one has to look at the mechanics of control and its relation to power in order to get to the facts. It is why I pointed out Sibel Edmonds' book. All the facts in the world whether from both sides will not allow one to understand how things really work. This cannot be taught. You alone have to discover this. Only then can a dialog of facts be had.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 30 May 2013, 11:46

Misha wrote:Arouet Wrote: "When you package things in a certain way, at first blush it can look convincing - but what you need to do is tear it down, and look at the premises - are they true? If true, do the conclusions follow from the premises? Are the premises provided in the proper context? Are there other conclusions that are also supported by the same set of facts? Are the facts presented objectively?"

Arouet, I am not here to package things. Far from it. What I am trying to illustrate is cause and effect weighed against historical differences in the record. I am a firm believer that one has to look at the mechanics of control and its relation to power in order to get to the facts. It is why I pointed out Sibel Edmonds' book. All the facts in the world whether from both sides will not allow one to understand how things really work. This cannot be taught. You alone have to discover this. Only then can a dialog of facts be had.


Let me ask this: if we were to accept for the sake of the argument that the government (or whoever we want to lay blame for the conspiracy) has the control you are referring to - where does that place us on the continuum of figuring out whether the moon landing was a hoax or not? Near the beginning of inquiry or the end?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Misha » 30 May 2013, 12:01

Arouet wrote:
Misha wrote:Arouet Wrote: "When you package things in a certain way, at first blush it can look convincing - but what you need to do is tear it down, and look at the premises - are they true? If true, do the conclusions follow from the premises? Are the premises provided in the proper context? Are there other conclusions that are also supported by the same set of facts? Are the facts presented objectively?"

Arouet, I am not here to package things. Far from it. What I am trying to illustrate is cause and effect weighed against historical differences in the record. I am a firm believer that one has to look at the mechanics of control and its relation to power in order to get to the facts. It is why I pointed out Sibel Edmonds' book. All the facts in the world whether from both sides will not allow one to understand how things really work. This cannot be taught. You alone have to discover this. Only then can a dialog of facts be had.


Let me ask this: if we were to accept for the sake of the argument that the government (or whoever we want to lay blame for the conspiracy) has the control you are referring to - where does that place us on the continuum of figuring out whether the moon landing was a hoax or not? Near the beginning of inquiry or the end?


Hi Arouet,

Let's get past "Conspiracy" as General Ben Partin pointed out to me years ago. We are dealing with POLICY and that policy is wrapped up in programs which have a need-to-know. The American public is a non factor in this and NOT included in this continuum. This is why I pointed out Sibel Edmonds' book.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 30 May 2013, 13:49

Misha wrote:
Let's get past "Conspiracy" as General Ben Partin pointed out to me years ago. We are dealing with POLICY and that policy is wrapped up in programs which have a need-to-know. The American public is a non factor in this and NOT included in this continuum. This is why I pointed out Sibel Edmonds' book.


I'm saying let's accept for the sake of the argument that these policies are in place. Where does that leave us?

If you want to say that the evidence is perfectly hidden except to those with a need to know then fine - really no point in discussing or reading any of this right? I have no illusions that I'll ever be in a need to know position after all.

But if we're saying that there are things we can figure out and evaluate then there is something to discuss. Which brings us back to: once we accept for the sake of the argument that there are certain people with motive and desire to carry out the policy you are describing - where do you go next? Is motive and desire enough to consider that something happened? Is means enough? How far do they take us?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 May 2013, 09:04

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote: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.


I didn't say I have problems viewing videos and pics - I said I don't have much of an aptitude when it comes to analysing them. Pretty sure I've said similar before on this forum. It has nothing to do with convenience. Prior to getting into the discussions here I'd never looked into any of this stuff before, so its hardly that I picked radiation because I thought it was weak and stay away from the pics because I think they are strong evidence of a hoax- I started this thing equally ignorant of all the arguments.

You seem to be suggesting that I went after the low hanging fruit. What I did was look over the topics you listed as key to your conclusions and focussed on the ones I found most interesting. But make no mistake - I chose from your topics, I didn't come up with them on my own! Are you changing your position on how key those topics are to you?


Yes, I am exactly suggesting you went after the low hanging fruit.

I think I've made it clear many times over now what are key topics and why. The argument should be closed by now on that. The radiation was a high risk in the minds of NASA and the military. The pics and videos are obvious bloopers in the process of faking a mission. All the reasons are in my 'talking points' as you call them, aka a summary of much of the evidence.

Arouet wrote:
well, you'll have to find a proxy to argue and analyse for you.


Why would I have to do that? If someone else wants to engage you on those topics I certainly won't stand in the way and will read the posts with interest. I don't have an opinion on those pics one way or the other.


Because you now claim you have a disability that prevents you studying any pics or videos meaningfully. Perhaps we should run a 'sceptical' test on that and show a bunch of the same pictures to a population of people with 2D vision (aobut 10% of the popn apparently) and see if they have the same conceptual problems grasping the points that are being made?

Arouet wrote:
you seem to have no such conceptual problems with analysing facts and figures around radiation,


Right, as I said. I don't get the photography stuff. I can get the other stuff. What's so hard to understand about that? Oh, I'm sure if I worked hard enough I could figure it out - but the other thing is I really don't have an interest in that. I do find the other topics I discussed interesting however. Why one over the other? Who knows? We don't pick what we find interesting.

I participate in these forums for interest and fun - why would I delve into topics that hold no interest for me and that I'll have to work extra hard at to figure out?


Haven't you just contradicted yourself in the same post yet again?

Arouet wrote:Look: there are so many aspects to these conspiracies that its impractical for me to discuss them all even if I found them all facinating - so why wouldn't I focus on the parts I'm interested in? And when they were things that you put forward as reasons for believing in the hoax, why wouldn't you want to delve into them with me? What changed from before I posted about them to after? As I said, from the beginning you thought they were pretty damn important!

Because it's not all about what fascinates Arouet today, it's about demonstrating a body of evidence which collectively strongly suggests a hoax. You are fixated on just one aspect, which is only a risk assessment part of the missions, not evidence of outright fakery. That is suspicious in itself, of course, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, did you say you also have an Aspbergers condition, or was that someone else? Absent Aspbergers, I suggest you are playing games for any one of a number of possible reasons.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 31 May 2013, 11:39

Here's what I'll do. I'm going to pick another topic from your most recent list to try and delve into further. My only criteria will be that it catches my interest. I'll tackle it in the same way I did the other topics.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Arouet » 31 May 2013, 12:23

So I was going over the list and - hold the phone!:

likely radiation risks throughout the mission, particularly around solar flares and the van allen belt


You kidding me? It's still on your list? I thought this was low hanging fruit now.

I think it would be helpful for you to indicate which ones are not low hanging before I pick a topic.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jun 2013, 15:00

Arouet wrote:So I was going over the list and - hold the phone!:

likely radiation risks throughout the mission, particularly around solar flares and the van allen belt


You kidding me? It's still on your list? I thought this was low hanging fruit now.

I think it would be helpful for you to indicate which ones are not low hanging before I pick a topic.


How many times have I said that the radiation levels were a RISK ASSESSMENT by the powers that be, in that they did not want to have people dying or returning with radiation sickness and then dying, or dying within 5-10 years of cancer, etc, etc. Based on the research done by van Allen in the 50s, I am suggesting that NASA et al were leery of sending anyone through the belts and into space as a negative PR risk. I've also made the comparison that it's like setting out to cross the Pacific Ocean on a raft assuming that the ocean will be flat all the way and there will be no large waves or storms while you do the crossing. Yes, this might happen in a 1 in 10 million fluke and the raft might make all 5,000 km or whatever, but it is exceedingly unlikely. This would have been a factor in the decision to fake the missions. Jarrah White's assertion that the astronauts would have been 'as dead as spam in a can' may be an overstatement -- it may be that there is not enough information available to decide -- but NASA would also have been faced with that same uncertainty in the 60s. Further, there was the problem of radiation continuing in the VA belts following Operation Starfish Prime, and they had no idea when that extra mess would clear itself up going through the 60s.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby really? » 01 Jun 2013, 18:11

Arouet wrote:So I was going over the list and - hold the phone!:


SydneyPSIder wrote: likely radiation risks throughout the mission, particularly around solar flares and the van allen belt


Arouet wrote:You kidding me? It's still on your list? I thought this was low hanging fruit now.

I think it would be helpful for you to indicate which ones are not low hanging before I pick a topic.


SydneyPSIder wrote:How many times have I said that the radiation levels were a RISK ASSESSMENT by the powers that be, in that they did not want to have people dying or returning with radiation sickness and then dying, or dying within 5-10 years of cancer, etc, etc. Based on the research done by van Allen in the 50s, I am suggesting that NASA et al were leery of sending anyone through the belts and into space as a negative PR risk. I've also made the comparison that it's like setting out to cross the Pacific Ocean on a raft assuming that the ocean will be flat all the way and there will be no large waves or storms while you do the crossing. Yes, this might happen in a 1 in 10 million fluke and the raft might make all 5,000 km or whatever, but it is exceedingly unlikely. This would have been a factor in the decision to fake the missions. Jarrah White's assertion that the astronauts would have been 'as dead as spam in a can' may be an overstatement -- it may be that there is not enough information available to decide -- but NASA would also have been faced with that same uncertainty in the 60s. Further, there was the problem of radiation continuing in the VA belts following Operation Starfish Prime, and they had no idea when that extra mess would clear itself up going through the 60s.


Every time you leave your home you make a risk assessment.

You having never been American likely don't comprehend the pioneering spirit we Americans have or the we can do anything attitude we had from WWII up until that time. We can be an intrepid lot at times. Did you know that crossing the continental US in a covered wagon as the pioneers did was just a dangerous as going to the Moon. Pioneers had a very good understanding of the risks involved. Many people died doing it but that didn't stop the pioneers from moving westward. Now look an human migration around the world in the past. From humans moving out of Africa. To humans settling nearly all of the islands of the south pacific [easter island] out in the middle of nowhere, danger or possible death never stops humans from doing anything. Those peoples sailed more than once and without knowing one bit what lay beyond the horizon. Now consider the US military. Did you know, the military after WWII put test pilots lives at risk developing jet aircraft? Many of the early astronauts were former test pilots and they knew full well that death was always a possibility in the "space race'. The military also used soldiers as guinea pigs at atomic blasts. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html
So your argument is a non sequitor bit of logic that NASA would stop because some people might die.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jun 2013, 18:45

Not likely, really? By the 60s, they weren't using soldiers as guinea pigs in nuclear tests any more. There was a huge sea change in the 50s in terms of litigation, workers rights, compensation and so on. In the 50s you could justify killing workers for the sake of profits, not in the 60s. Further, they couldn't report crashed moon landers, dead astronauts, etc, to the world, it would be terribly demoralising and have the opposite effect of that intended, of demonstrating supremacy in space technology, beating the Russians, and so on. You wouldn't be #1 at all, you would be great big fat failures with the blood of dead astronauts on your hands.

The best way to get the whole Apollo space program pulled and concede defeat to the Russians would be to have some fatalities. Fatalities were the justification for pulling the space shuttle program, for instance. And these guys were celebrities, and highly paid test pilots trained at great cost, not just dispensable grunts. There is some evidence to suggest in fact that Yuri Gagarin actually didn't go into orbit, just in case the mission failed, and it was also a PR job.

And after those missions, why has no-one ever gone back to the moon again? If it was such a great frontier, and so, so easy to get to 6 times over without a hitch, and all successful returns too, landing on a dime. This is the other big smoking gun in the whole affair -- nobody has done anything but go into low orbit ever since the supposed missions. Nobody has the blueprints any more for the modules either. You think you would be able to send module after module, they could churn them out like an assembly line on demand, given that they were so successful and could land on the moon without a hitch, then spend a day or two dancing around on the moon and clowning around before getting back in the car and going home again with no problems.

So, nice try, but everything goes against what you're suggesting -- politically, and in science. It's not a Captain Kirk wild west of space type frontier at all. It's a dangerous place, and no-one has been. But if that is what you want to 'believe', against all the evidence and odds, if it makes you feel any better about yourself, go ahead and believe it.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jun 2013, 18:58

Then of course there is the trap Bart Sibrel set for Buzz Aldrin I think it was, where it appeared Buzz could not describe what it was like passing through the van Allen belts -- you would see constant stars and flashes on the back of your retinas. He obviously hadn't experienced it when asked. Space shuttle crew have observed it more recently flying through the very lowest reaches of the belts. That would have probably continued at a slightly reduced level for the rest of the journey to the moon and back due to solar radiation. He was very uncomfortable and seemed very caught out psychologically by it, which is another telling aspect. Then there is the 'we were just passengers' excuse, 'why don't you ask NASA where we went?'. Hello? A very spirited defence, not.

Then there is the ongoing confusion between different astronauts as to whether they could see stars on the journey out. Some say yes, others say no. When you ask the nos about the yeses, they get very angry and say the yeses don't know what they're talking about. Then they go back to trying to sell their latest book or sell their memorabilia for $100,000 a pop and try to get the person questioning shut down and evicted from proceedings.

These guys are as big a hoax as the fake psychics. And so is the government behind them.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby really? » 02 Jun 2013, 00:51

SydneyPSIder wrote:Then of course there is the trap Bart Sibrel set for Buzz Aldrin I think it was, where it appeared Buzz could not describe what it was like passing through the van Allen belts -- you would see constant stars and flashes on the back of your retinas. He obviously hadn't experienced it when asked. Space shuttle crew have observed it more recently flying through the very lowest reaches of the belts. That would have probably continued at a slightly reduced level for the rest of the journey to the moon and back due to solar radiation. He was very uncomfortable and seemed very caught out psychologically by it, which is another telling aspect. Then there is the 'we were just passengers' excuse, 'why don't you ask NASA where we went?'. Hello? A very spirited defence, not.

Then there is the ongoing confusion between different astronauts as to whether they could see stars on the journey out. Some say yes, others say no. When you ask the nos about the yeses, they get very angry and say the yeses don't know what they're talking about. Then they go back to trying to sell their latest book or sell their memorabilia for $100,000 a pop and try to get the person questioning shut down and evicted from proceedings.

These guys are as big a hoax as the fake psychics. And so is the government behind them.


Well, I just learned something from you, you are one myopic individual who doesn't have the ability to consider anything that counters your view. And before you quip back with the same about me it would help you immensely [ I can't stress that enough] if you'd stop with the opining and actually bring facts to the table. [So called] facts from other moon hoax believers are not acceptable as facts unless those facts can be corroborated independently from an impartial source. Good luck. ;)
Last edited by really? on 02 Jun 2013, 06:01, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

Postby Misha » 02 Jun 2013, 04:30

SydneyPSIder wrote:Not likely, really? By the 60s, they weren't using soldiers as guinea pigs in nuclear tests any more. There was a huge sea change in the 50s in terms of litigation, workers rights, compensation and so on. In the 50s you could justify killing workers for the sake of profits, not in the 60s. Further, they couldn't report crashed moon landers, dead astronauts, etc, to the world, it would be terribly demoralising and have the opposite effect of that intended, of demonstrating supremacy in space technology, beating the Russians, and so on. You wouldn't be #1 at all, you would be great big fat failures with the blood of dead astronauts on your hands.

The best way to get the whole Apollo space program pulled and concede defeat to the Russians would be to have some fatalities. Fatalities were the justification for pulling the space shuttle program, for instance. And these guys were celebrities, and highly paid test pilots trained at great cost, not just dispensable grunts. There is some evidence to suggest in fact that Yuri Gagarin actually didn't go into orbit, just in case the mission failed, and it was also a PR job.

And after those missions, why has no-one ever gone back to the moon again? If it was such a great frontier, and so, so easy to get to 6 times over without a hitch, and all successful returns too, landing on a dime. This is the other big smoking gun in the whole affair -- nobody has done anything but go into low orbit ever since the supposed missions. Nobody has the blueprints any more for the modules either. You think you would be able to send module after module, they could churn them out like an assembly line on demand, given that they were so successful and could land on the moon without a hitch, then spend a day or two dancing around on the moon and clowning around before getting back in the car and going home again with no problems.

So, nice try, but everything goes against what you're suggesting -- politically, and in science. It's not a Captain Kirk wild west of space type frontier at all. It's a dangerous place, and no-one has been. But if that is what you want to 'believe', against all the evidence and odds, if it makes you feel any better about yourself, go ahead and believe it.


Excellent, Sydney. A skillful summation. Many of these points by Sydney are covered in Wisnewki's book - "One small step."
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 3 guests

cron