Lunar Narratives: Landing on the Moon, Politics and the Cold War
Binoy Kampmark
Werner von Braun (1912-1977) the German-born American rocket engineer with model rockets. He was director of the American Army team that put the first satellite Explorer I into space in 1958. (Photo by © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)
Anniversaries are occasions to distort records. The intoxicated recounting of the past faces a record in need of correction. Couples long-married hide their differences before guests. Creases are covered; the make-up is applied generously. Defects become virtues, if, indeed they were ever there to begin with.
In historical commemoration, the same is true. The moon landing anniversary his weekend was given a vigorous clean-up, with the Cold War finding a back seat when it was, in fact, the main driver.
The moon project was a fundamental political poke, soaked by competitive drives. The science was the instrumental ballast and has come to provide the heavy cosmetics to romanticise what is, at best, an effigy. When President John F. Kennedy proclaimed his wish for the United States to land a man on the moon and safely return him by the end of the 1960s, he was google-eyed by Cold War syndrome.
The Soviets had been making advances in the space race, and paranoia at Red exploits was catching. A godless state had launched the nerve-wracking Sputnik in 1957 and in 1961 put Yuri Gagarin into space.
While the Soviet Union is only mentioned once in his speech at Rice University, the competitive dig, the putdown, did come. Balance had to be restored. “Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were ‘made in the United States of America’ and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union.”
When he mentions being “behind for some time in manned flight”, there is little doubt who the bogeyman to beat is. We do not, he said reassuringly to his audience, “intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.”
Combating the Soviet Union, and communism more broadly, was simply one aspect of an aggrandised fist fight, to be fought on the ground, the seas, and in space. While it has become a charming conceit to suggest that JFK had intended to take the brakes off US commitments to stemming the Communist contagion in Vietnam, his administration saw a spike in the deployment of resources and advisors to the South. He had to be seen to be aggressive in all theatres of endeavour.
Domestically, selling the moon mission was not popular, and the post-landing effort to scrub away voices of opposition in the historical record has been vigorous. Space historian Roger Launius notes the sentiment at the time. “Consistently throughout the 1960s a majority of Americans did not believe Apollo was worth the cost, with the one exception to this poll taken at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969.”
In 1964, the sociologist Amitai Etzioni published the despairing, blistering work that deserves a good dive into. The Moon-Doggle: Domestic and International Implications of the Space Race notes scientific opposition to the space program, at least in so far as it was not balanced. The space race, with its immortalisation of gadgets, glorified “rocket-powered jumps” and “extrovert activism”, had been “used as an escape”. The obsession with the moon delayed “facing ourselves, as Americans and citizens of the earth.”
Earthly concerns were considered more pressing. Civil rights leaders in the United States feared a loss of focus. While a million people gathered along Florida’s Space Coast to watch the launch of Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969, some 500 protestors, mostly African-American and led by Rev. Ralph Abernathy, paid a visit to the Kennedy Space Centre. He had in tow a wooden wagon and two mules, a deliciously confronting contrast between the Saturn V rocket and the impecunious life. “$12 a day to feed an astronaut, we could feed a child for $8,” read the protest signs.
NASA administrator Thomas Paine ventured out to meet Abernathy, subsequently recounting the concerns of the reverend. “The money for the space program, he stated, should be spent to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend the sick, and house the shelterless.”
Behind the project lay other dark forces whose roles have been obscured by propagandists of a romantic lunar narrative. The amoral genius that was Wernher von Braun, given the moniker of Missileman, was an illustration that science might well lack an ethical compass, even if it worked. Tom Lehrer’s lines from 1967 were hitting in their aptness: “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? / That’s not my department, says Wernher von Braun.”
Kennedy was himself keen to justify the reason for going to the moon not because it made sense for humans to do so but because it was hard. His Rice University address couples banalities, the human urge to engage and achieve the impossible expounded. “Why climb the highest mountain?” he rhetorically poses. Or fly the Atlantic? “Why does Rice play Texas?”
Going to the moon was a goal that would “serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”
What mattered was getting the job done with a kind of mechanistic fanaticism: working labourers to death in Mittelbau-Dora in making V-2 rockets to target civilians during the Second World War was as worthy as beating the Soviets in the space game. In Disney’s 1955 television production Man and the Moon, von Braun, the then director of development at the US Army Ballistic Missile Agency, spoke of a nuclear-powered space station that would propel Americans to the moon.
A decade before, von Braun was part of a scooping operation conducted by US personnel to nab the best and brightest of German science, a process that did much to ensure a good deal of whitewashing of industrialised murder. In the gathering were the signs of the Cold War to come; the Soviets conducted their own version of Operation Paperclip, plundering the brainboxes of Teutonic engineering. To the victors went the corrupted spoils.
Von Braun was treated and feted, plied with generous budgets and resources. The missiles duly came. He led a team that developed Redstone, the first US ballistic missile capable of propelling a nuclear warhead to distances of 250 miles. Then came the Jupiter-C in 1958, which shot the first US satellite, Explorer 1, into space.
The famed Saturn V rocket was created while von Braun was director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre. The line between concentration camp and the moon landing was established, as was the role of the smooth scientist communicator trading on human wonder.
Colossal human stupidity, and moral shakiness, tend to find ways into the grandiose and the grand. As a species, hubris has proven a common trait. Technological mastery comes torrentially more easily than luminous ethical insight.
France’s courtly Charles De Gaulle was reflective on this point: humans might well have mastered the way of getting to the moon but it could hardly be said to be far. “The greatest distance we have to cover still lies within us.”
Humankind has yet to master its more terrestrial problems. Any future exploration and colonisation is bound to see humans bringing their own complement of problems to the frontiers of space. Facing ourselves continues to be a delayed enterprise of arrested development.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
This is an unscientific question, born out of just looking at photos of the Lunar Landers.
Here goes………
Q) If you strapped a Lunar Lander to the roof rack on your car and drove it around for the same length of time is was in flight on the back of a Saturn V rocket, what would happen?
In assuming this actually went to the moon, then a bravery trophy, depicting the luna lander should exist.
Dear Fight Nonsense (or ‘Nonsense Fight’ as I have privately rechristened you), in answer to your latest post:
OK… you’ve just demonstrated your flagrant assertion fallacy about JW and frankly I’m kinda disappointed. It’s increasingly clear you’re a NASA fanboy fanatic, impervious to reason, attempting to dominate this thread using protracted assertion fallacies, dodgy links and ad hominem attacks.
Here is a timestamped link to Webb’s apology for his false assertions that jarrah was traipsing through wikipedia archives.
https://youtu.be/JGq19L761eY
I care not if you say it was intended sarcastically (as all apologies given in bad grace are). They say one should ’never apologise’ and this is probably an example of this being true, in that case, as if it was intended to be sarcasm that certainly doesn’t come across. Webb apologised. Period.
Now, please post a timestamped youtube link to anywhere else that Jarrah White falsely asserts anything about meteorites in Antarctica. If you can’t, perhaps you could retract your previous statement?
May I ask, are you in fact Phil Webb? Your reasoning is almost identical. Or maybe Astrobrant 2?
Sorry, appeals to consensus and arguing from authority don’t add veracity to fantastical claims. They only make the claims look sillier by comparison, particularly when the only actual evidence for them are some dodgy photos and some rocks which contain rust.
https://youtu.be/CKCE4Y4zkhY?t=723
It’s like trying to support the existence of Santa Claus using established science – the science itself isn’t invalidated by association, it’s simply false attribution by a wishful fantasist.
Lots of people believing fantastical claims isn’t unprecedented! In fact, human history demonstrates quite the opposite (You yourself brought up the bible!).
However, despite your argumentum ad populum, the reassuring consensus you keep appealing to is diminishing, all the time.
Please, materialise these facts!!
According to your own source “The Apollo missions are, so far, the only missions to have flown during a solar maximum …”
The AP-8 and AE-8 radiation belt models which date from the 50s/60s are outdated, and the sensors couldn’t measure the full range of charged particle radiation. Incidentally, the Apollo 9 mission in LEO is documented to have exposed astronauts to greater radiation than NASA’s alleged figures for Apollo 11! How does that work!? Your link calculates lower even than NASA’s official Apollo 11 figures! It’s ridiculously low!!
Pure waffle and speculation (and a dose of unintentional irony). Really, I expected better of you. That is a double standard right there.
…and who therefore isn’t impartial…
Except he did when he first published them.
I don’t know WHAT you mean. Sources?
Unless you can point to a source, you can’t possibly tell me what Armstrong meant. This is more speculation and zero actual science.
I didn’t make any such contradictory claim.
Argument from Incredulity. It’s not inconceivable. Large budget movies do this all the time. It’s notoriously difficult to stay on schedule and things get missed.
I don’t see that at all, in any of the photos I’ve seen.
If you pertain that the thrusters merely gently wafted the dust away, with similar pressure to a particularly ineffectual leaf blower, then frankly that’s silly.
Even assuming for a moment that no ‘blast crater’ would have formed, let us remember that the equivalent weight of the LEM on the moon was 2.5 metric tonnes. Even in a vacuum (that universal saviour of so many hokey Apollo inconsistencies), gas particles leaving the exhaust cone are going to continue on their trajectory long enough to impact with the lunar surface when close the ground. That’s going to kick up some dust (even if nothing else!).
Yet, you don’t see a distribution pattern in the dust. The dust travelled somewhere, and it wouldn’t have been smoothly and evenly distributed in all directions, with an invisible gradient from dust to rock. We know there was dust kicked up on the LEM landing camera, and Armstrong announces they are ‘picking up some dust’. Yet, why was there no distribution pattern? Why was no dust deposited on the completely dust-free and pristine LEM? Why can you STILL SEE dust and tiny particles directly beneath the exhaust cones?
It simply doesn’t look convincing or make sense! The surrounding surface should have been noticeably disturbed by the heat and force of the rocket plume.
Has it occurred to you… (and does it rankle you a bit?)… that considering the abundant wealth of evidence that COULD overwhelmingly prove Apollo as genuine, how little concrete evidence there is? In fact, you’re reduced to arguing semantics about some photos (which look suspiciously retouched and pristine considering their age and the environment they were shot in!), and defending the inconsistent claims of NASA employees!
Does this seem wrong to you?!
This is landing on the moon, for goodness sake. Yet NASA destroyed all the telemetry tapes and the original footage, stopped developing the program, never went again and retired the technology which had performed almost flawlessly over 6 manned missions! Moonrock chemical signatures are suspiciously similar to certain earth rocks, all samples tested contain water within the range of terrestrial rocks, and a lot contain rust. The LEM itself looks like a set piece from a hokey tv show, and the ground crew dialogue sounds unconvincingly self-assured, like a kid’s cartoon. I can detect no real tension in their voices.
It just all adds up to feel…. pretty bogus to me!
You haven’t ACTUALLY pointed to one argument of Jarrah’s for which that applies. You simply lied about an aside he made regarding Antarctica to create a straw man. Other than that you’ve made sweeping generalisations to POISON THE WELL. Nothing more.
The way I see it, the only person making false claims is you.
TO SUM UP: You engage in unsubstantiated speculation which, considering your bold claims about hard science and your past criticisms of other posters, demonstrates special pleading and double standards (and is really hypocritical). Your science is scanty at best and your only firsthand witness, Neil Armstrong, contradicts your claims!
And, excuse me, this source!
“www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf”
“Apollo missions did coincide with disturbed conditions at the Moon, which would have resulted in enhanced surface charging, dust transport and exospheric activity.”
Well…. what a convenient and bizarrely specific finding by this weirdly broad study entitled ‘Interplanetary Conditions during the Apollo Missions: Implications for the State of the Lunar Environment”, which is basically an attempt to prop up the shadiest bits of the official narrative in one handy pamphlet.
[Isn’t this actually a powerpoint presentation?]
I have never seen such a mishmash of high school diagrams mixed with barely-explained, decontextualised data. Cod science designed to intimidate laymen.
Please find something that actually demonstrates some empirical procedure, doesn’t have the NASA logo on and whose conclusion ISN’T LAID OUT IN BULLET POINTS.
Lastly, the payload of Zond 5 was 2 tortoises plus… “fruit fly eggs, cells of wheat, barley, pea, pine, carrots and tomatoes, specimens of the wildflower species Tradescantia paludosa, three strains of the single-celled green algae Chlorella…one strain of lysogenic bacteria” ….and some radiation sensors.
Could you tell me what the radio-resistance of the animal payload is, compared to a man?
If you bear in mind Russia’s claims regarding cosmic radiation and manned space flight, you might not be surprised by the answer.
“OK… you’ve just demonstrated your flagrant assertion fallacy about JW and frankly I’m kinda disappointed. It’s increasingly clear you’re a NASA fanboy fanatic, impervious to reason, attempting to dominate this thread using protracted assertion fallacies, dodgy links and ad hominem attacks.”
No, that’s YOU guys, with your fraudulent non-scientific “sources” and resort to meme-mongering and Red Herrings.
“I care not if you say it was intended sarcastically (as all apologies given in bad grace are). They say one should ’never apologise’ and this is probably an example of this being true, in that case, as if it was intended to be sarcasm that certainly doesn’t come across. Webb apologised. Period.”
It came across in spades. I’m sorry that you can’t discern sarcasm. That’s your problem, though, not mine. Or perhaps you’re just playing dumb?
“May I ask, are you in fact Phil Webb?”
May I ask, are you in fact a worthless troll?
“Well, we can go by the hard science used by the entire world scientific community”
“Sorry, appeals to consensus and arguing from authority don’t add veracity to fantastical claims.”
You’ve demonstrated nothing “fantastical” (though I admit that you’ve certainly INTONED it. My “non-sarcastic” “apologies”). You’re saying that the entire world scientific community is in on the conspiracy? I’m sorry, but this makes you look even sillier. If you have to keep expanding the scope of a conspiracy, you’re in effect acknowledging that you don’t have any confidence in it.
“They only make the claims look sillier by comparison, particularly when the only actual evidence for them are some dodgy photos and some rocks which contain rust.
https://youtu.be/CKCE4Y4zkhY?t=723”
The photos are far from dodgy. It’s simply that you NEED them to be, “therefore” they “are”. That’s literally it.
“Lots of people believing fantastical claims isn’t unprecedented!”
True. One only needs to look at the legions of stupidly named YouTube basement dwelling fake account trolls who have appalling spelling and grammar and who think that the moon landings were fabricated. It’s noteworthy that the probability of believing in this conspiracy is inversely proportional to one’s scientific acumen and actual experience in the sciences. You simply don’t find legions of actual scientists and engineers believing in this conspiracy. Desperate appeals to “You can’t rely on community consensus!” when alluding to a community that is technically competent just so you can pretend that it’s a bunch of people offering opinions isn’t going to magically make your side look any more credible, I’m afraid. It only underlines how monstrously hypocritical you are, given that you rely on a community that is pathetically un-involved in the sciences and completely inconsequential to the advance on science.
“However, despite your argumentum ad populum, the reassuring consensus you keep appealing to is diminishing, all the time.”
Of course, it actually ISN’T. Like, at all. Moon landing deniers are just becoming more big-mouthed and entitled and fake news is proliferating, giving you ideological cover to engage in this nonsense because you feel that you have the “backing” of this “community” of “truth seekers”. This doesn’t in the slightest signify a sea change in the scientific consensus.
“Please, materialise these facts!!”
What did you have in mind, exactly? You seem impervious to actual facts regardless of where they emanate, whether from Europe, China, Russia, Japan or any other technologically and scientifically advanced state. Perhaps made-up facts would be more to your liking? You demonstrate a proclivity to regarding children’s coloring books as good guides to space technology, for example (you seem to fancy yourself knowledgeable enough to confidently claim that a LEM “shouldn’t” look like a LEM, after all) and you keep on pretending that technical competence somehow adds no veracity to one’s claims or to those of an entire community.
“No, the solar flare occurred in between Apollos 16 & 17, in August 1972.”
“According to your own source “The Apollo missions are, so far, the only missions to have flown during a solar maximum …””
Argument by Red Herring and ignorance, combined with fallacy of composition. Solar maximums are not the same as solar flares. Where’s your evidence that a solar maximum, in and of itself, would kill the astronauts?
“The AP-8 and AE-8 radiation belt models which date from the 50s/60s are outdated, and the sensors couldn’t measure the full range of charged particle radiation.”
But Jarrah can? 🙂 Give me a break.
“Incidentally, the Apollo 9 mission in LEO is documented to have exposed astronauts to greater radiation than NASA’s alleged figures for Apollo 11! How does that work!?”
But…but…I thought that they were exposed to “flares”? (you now seem to have backed away from this, and retreated to the relative safety -as you see it – of a “solar maximum”) Are you saying that NASA faked the radiation levels on all the flights, to make it look like those on Apollo 9 were greater than those on Apollo 11? Why would they do THAT?
“Your link calculates lower even than NASA’s official Apollo 11 figures! It’s ridiculously low!!”
Sure you’re not just making things up or meme-mongering again?
“Van Allen, who worked closely as a consultant with NASA…,”
…and who therefore isn’t impartial…”
But Jarrah, who’s made no actual contributions to science, is somehow impartial, and doesn’t have any sort of interest in convincing you that he isn’t presenting falsehoods after being caught out presenting such falsehoods?
P.S. are you accusing van Allen of deliberately LYING? Can you document this? Or will it remain as just another slanderous accusation of the sort that your ilk routinely indulge in to prop up your silly “theory” and your perpetual non-involement in science?
“…didn’t consider these “maxed out Geiger readings” to be an actual problem –”
“Except he did when he first published them.”
Even if true, initial assumptions often fall to the wayside with new developments in knowledge or technology. But perhaps you can show why Van Allen’s initial assessment was a show-stopper for any prospect of manned lunar exploration?
“[Jarrah] mistakenly assumes that the electrons are only coming head on).”
“I don’t know WHAT you mean. Sources?”
The video I posted, which shows why his calculations are way off and not taken seriously by any actual scientists (and nor will they be taken seriously for the purposes of future manned lunar missions). That source.
“Unless you can point to a source, you can’t possibly tell me what Armstrong meant.
“This is more speculation and zero actual science.”
Says the guy who has to engage in speculation and zero actual science to discern what Armstrong meant.
“Have you met with any success among actual scientists for your contradictory claim that alludes to regolith being blown away while denying that there is any sign of disturbance beneath the LEM even though such disturbance is perfectly evident in actual photos of the LEM?”
“I didn’t make any such contradictory claim.”
Of course you did: you claimed that the photos show “no sign of disturbance.” Also, glad that you tacitly confirmed that you HAVEN’T met with any success among actual scientists, only with trolls and basement dwellers.
“Also, do you think that NASA would have made such an obvious mistake after spending billions to pull off a gigantic hoax”
“Argument from Incredulity.”
This gem coming from the guy who claims that the photos are all “dodgy”. “Hmmm, they don’t look right to me” seems to be the extent of your scientific case against them.
“It’s not inconceivable.”
Lots of things aren’t inconceivable in the delusional fantasies of moon landing deniers. But perhaps your delusions give you more insight than the entirety of Soviet science at the time, which fully affirmed the authenticity of Apollo.
“Large budget movies do this all the time. It’s notoriously difficult to stay on schedule and things get missed.”
Yes, small things. The absence of a crater isn’t a small thing; it would be an absolutely CENTRAL thing with no chance of being overlooked. But the Soviets also “missed” that, I guess.
“The disturbance beneath the LEM is perfectly evident…”
“I don’t see that at all, in any of the photos I’ve seen.”
I literally just showed you a photo perfectly illustrating it. It’s one of the “dodgy photos” that you claim shows no evidence for what it actually shows.
“If you pertain that the thrusters merely gently wafted the dust away, with similar pressure to a particularly ineffectual leaf blower, then frankly that’s silly.”
Argument from incredulity combined with naked assertion fallacy.
“…a throttleable engine which was only producing about 1.5 lb/sqrt inch of ground pressure at the time of descent
“Even assuming for a moment that no ‘blast crater’ would have formed,”
NASA already knew that one wouldn’t form (in rock).
“let us remember that the equivalent weight of the LEM on the moon was 2.5 metric tonnes.”
Nope, WRONG! Try HALF that weight as the LEM burned through its fuel from the initial part of its descent, leaving a final weight of only about 1,200 kilograms in lunar gravity. My goodness, do you even bother trying to get it right or do you just see facts as trifling nuisances?
“Even in a vacuum (that universal saviour of so many hokey Apollo inconsistencies), gas particles leaving the exhaust cone are going to continue on their trajectory long enough to impact with the lunar surface when close the ground. That’s going to kick up some dust (even if nothing else!).”
The straw-man argument you’re using here is that no one at NASA thinks that dust was kicked up, when in fact no one claims this.
“Yet, you don’t see a distribution pattern in the dust. The dust travelled somewhere, and it wouldn’t have been smoothly and evenly distributed in all directions, with an invisible gradient from dust to rock. We know there was dust kicked up on the LEM landing camera, and Armstrong announces they are ‘picking up some dust’. Yet, why was there no distribution pattern? Why was no dust deposited on the completely dust-free and pristine LEM? Why can you STILL SEE dust and tiny particles directly beneath the exhaust cones?”
You’re all over the place here, contradicting yourself at every turn with various types of fallacies. First you complain that dust should be kicked around (okay, that’s true. Everyone agrees here), then you complain that some of it is still under the thruster cone (gee, I don’t know: maybe it rebounded off the underside of the LEM?). You claim that the thruster wasn’t powerful enough (to hoer the “2.5 tonnes” you erroneously cite as the LEM’s weight at that part of the descent) and you imply that it should be more powerful (you liken the actual ground pressure from the thruster to a “leaf blower”), but then you claim that there should be clearly discernible “distribution patterns” – for the results of what “should” be a much more powerful engine in a vacuum! As for the lack of dust on the footpads of the Eagle:
“IN A NUTSHELL: Different terrains and different landing styles. Some missions landed in flat regions of the Moon and others landed in hilly areas, with different dust covers. Some pilots landed less gently than Apollo 11; some dragged their footpads on the ground, scooping up dust. The astronauts also occasionally kicked dust into the footpads as they walked close to the LM landing gear.” https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/812-why-are-apollo-11s-footpads-clean.html
And are you saying that vacuum WOULDN’T make much of a difference compared to the same thing in an atmosphere? If not, why would you expect clear “distribution patterns” if there is no atmosphere and the only disturbance to dust would be from the rocket plume and other colliding dust particles which had themselves been disturbed by the plume – as opposed to a rocket plume, colliding dust particles AND and a disturbed atmosphere?
Could you cite some actual hokey inconsistencies rather than fake ones emanating from your straw-men and arguments from ignorance?
“It simply doesn’t look convincing or make sense! The surrounding surface should have been noticeably disturbed by the heat and force of the rocket plume.”
Except that, as I showed you in the photo, it was clearly disturbed (very little dust and lots of exposed rock, compared to the outlying vicinity, which shows the opposite). How is a LACK of dust in a vicinity of dust not a sign of disturbance?
“Has it occurred to you… (and does it rankle you a bit?)… that considering the abundant wealth of evidence that COULD overwhelmingly prove Apollo as genuine, how little concrete evidence there is?”
Naked assertion fallacy and argumentum ad populum.
“In fact, you’re reduced to arguing semantics about some photos (which look suspiciously retouched and pristine considering their age and the environment they were shot in!),”
Another naked assertion fallacy combined with argumentum ad populum.
“and defending the inconsistent claims of NASA employees!”
Interesting, coming from someone who refuses to use his own eyes, all so that he can desperately cling to his cherished conspiracy theory.
“Yet NASA destroyed all the telemetry tapes”
Yet another naked assertion fallacy and argumentum ad populum. They did no such thing. In fact, only a small portion of all the telemetry was lost. Given that fact, are you saying that the telemetry they’ve retained was also fake, but that the telemetry they lost was deliberately destroyed so that they could cover up something that was fake despite retaining that which was fake? HUH???
“and the original footage,”
A Red Herring fallacy. The loss of original tapes would not in way way indicate fakery, given that they made copies of those tapes, and they kept on going to the moon, where the original tapes were not lost. Furthermore, people like you claim to be able to discern plenty of evidence of fakery in the non-original footage, so losing the original footage doesn’t seem to have made much difference.
“stopped developing the program,”
Yes, because the government decided to pull funding for it for budgetary and political reasons. NASA wanted to continue the program; the government and an increasing segment of the public didn’t. The only reason Apollo was initiated in the first place was to beat the Soviets. Having done that multiple times, the political urgency to continue the program had dissipated.
“never went again and retired the technology which had performed almost flawlessly over 6 manned missions!”
Where’s your reasoning that because they had achieved something, that they therefore “had” to continue it? Why not pay attention to the political and budgetary context for both the initiation of Apollo and its cancellation? Oh, that’s right: so that you can indulge in more stupid conspiracy theories that ignore facts such as that the public’s interest was waning and that it suffered a severe decline with the Apollo 13 incident. Are you saying that they in fact lost the technology to FAKE the moon landings, and that that’s why they haven’t “faked” them since them? Interesting too that the Soviets didn’t “fake” a moon landing, if it would have been so “easy” to do. Are you saying that “dodgy photos” were beyond their technical capabilities? Or are you saying that they were such imbeciles (despite being ahead of the US for much of the Space Race) that they couldn’t discern that the “hockey lander” they got “tricked” by was a “prop”?
“Moonrock chemical signatures are suspiciously similar to certain earth rocks,”
“Suspiciously” similar? Says no ACTUAL geologist. And, of course, you ignore that there are many tell-tale signs that the rocks are lunar, involving chemical signatures not found in Earth rocks. It would of course make sense that they have SOME aspects in common with Earth rocks, especially if the moon formed from a collision between Earth and another celestial body, but the conditions on Earth and the moon are different. You know this, right? So why lie about it?
“all samples tested contain water within the range of terrestrial rocks,”
An unmitigated lie, right there.
“and a lot contain rust.”
Webb (and science more generally) have already dealt handily with this claim by Jarrah and other moon landing deniers (more specifically, the notion that it poses a difficulty for “We went to the moon”). There are actual scientific reasons why oxidation in lunar rocks should be evident. In fact, the Apollo 17 astronauts thought they were looking at oxidized rock (it turns out they weren’t in that specific instance of the orange soil they spotted, but that isn’t the point. The point is that even then it was known to be within the realm of possibility that moon rocks and regolith could contain oxidation. It would be kind of STUPID, wouldn’t it, to have them talk about oxidized rock if they were part of a conspiracy and if oxidation poses a fatal problem for the supposition that the rocks are from the moon?).
“The LEM itself looks like a set piece from a hokey tv show,”
Argumentum ad populum. Also: Says no actual space engineer ever. But I guess that your opinion is to be preferred, given that you have some very exacting standards for how a spacecraft should look, given your experience watching Hollywood films and reading children’s coloring books. I guess that the Soviets were tricked by this “obvious” fakery as well, right? Space agencies should hire you as a technical consultant from now on, so that they can get their space technology “correct” next time.
It was only a matter of time before you would fall off the deep end and resort to this embarrassing, STUPID meme.
“and the ground crew dialogue sounds unconvincingly self-assured, like a kid’s cartoon, I can detect no real tension in their voices.”
Ah, so you’re ALSO an expert on how dialogue between professional military pilots with years of experience of controlling their nerves and dealing with dangerous situations should sound like. If they had been screaming or showing more emotion, you would then use that as a reason why it’s fake (“I thought these were meant to be professional pilots? They sound panicked. This is like a children’s cartoon show.”)
“It just all adds up to feel…. pretty bogus to me!”
I’m blown away by your “evidence”.
“TO SUM UP: You engage in unsubstantiated speculation”
Interesting, coming from the guy who thinks he knows what a LEM “shouldn’t” look like (based on no science or engineering whatsoever), who claims to know how dust should deposit on a surface in a a vacuum after a disturbance (but provides only wild speculation to “prove” it), and who thinks he can discern a conspiracy due to the calmness of the astronauts (because he apparently doesn’t know that that the astronauts were selected on precisely such criteria as calmness under pressure). And that’s when you’re not overestimating the weight of the LEM by a factor of 2.
“which, considering your bold claims about hard science and your past criticisms of other posters, demonstrates special pleading and double standards (and is really hypocritical).”
Oh BLAH BLAH BLAH, says the vile hypocrite and serial speculator and liar.
“Your science is scanty at best”
Interesting, coming from the guy who gets the bare basics consistently wrong, has to hide behind the miserable excuse “you can’t hide behind community consensus” while he cowers behind the consensus of the moon landing denying “community” of corrupt taxi drivers and radio hosts, and thinks he knows lunar rocks better than actual geologists because he can resort to sophomoric speculations about what :shouldn’t be found on such rocks.
“and your only firsthand witness, Neil Armstrong, contradicts your claims!”
Interesting, coming from the guy whose claims about the photos are directly contradicted by the photos even as he claims that he can’t see what is plainly evident in said photos.
“And, excuse me, this source!
“www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf”
“Apollo missions did coincide with disturbed conditions at the Moon, which would have resulted in enhanced surface charging, dust transport and exospheric activity.”
“Well…. what a convenient and bizarrely specific finding by this weirdly broad study entitled ‘Interplanetary Conditions during the Apollo Missions: Implications for the State of the Lunar Environment”, which is basically an attempt to prop up the shadiest bits of the official narrative in one handy pamphlet.”
Where’s your proof that the astronauts should have died even with this enhanced surface charging? And what’s with your weird aversion to scientific presentations at professional institutions?
“[Isn’t this actually a powerpoint presentation?]”
Yes, to professional astronomers and engineers, not to people like you who weren’t even in attendance. That something is made available to the public doesn’t mean it was meant for them.
“I have never seen such a mishmash of high school diagrams mixed with barely-explained, decontextualised data. Cod science designed to intimidate laymen.”
You’re saying that the scientists and engineers wouldn’t have known the context? Who told you that it was meant for laymen, anyway? Where’s your evidence that intimidation was the goal?
“Please find something that actually demonstrates some empirical procedure, doesn’t have the NASA logo on and whose conclusion ISN’T LAID OUT IN BULLET POINTS.”
Why not try the countless scientific papers written by professional international geologists studying the lunar rock? Geologists use very exacting procedures to study samples. While you’re at it, why not also try a bit of honesty instead of disingenuous concern-trolling about stylistic elements like bullet points (as though they aren’t used in scientific presentations)? I thought this was about the CONTENT of the claims that NASA went to the moon, not the style of a PowerPoint slides. I guess not, huh?
“Lastly, the payload of Zond 5 was 2 tortoises plus… “fruit fly eggs, cells of wheat, barley, pea, pine, carrots and tomatoes, specimens of the wildflower species Tradescantia paludosa, three strains of the single-celled green algae Chlorella…one strain of lysogenic bacteria” ….and some radiation sensors.
“Could you tell me what the radio-resistance of the animal payload is, compared to a man?”
No need to. You’re the one who claims that men “couldn’t” have traveled through the belts. Are you saying that the Soviets faked their radiation detection results?
“If you bear in mind Russia’s claims regarding cosmic radiation and manned space flight, you might not be surprised by the answer.”
What “claims”? Be precise? And are you in fact saying that they “knew” that the radiation was too high for men, but that they still initiated a manned lunar program which they only cancelled because their rocket kept blowing up, but didn’t bother to “fake” their program like the Americans?
re not enough thrust in a vacuum for the LM to leave a crater ,as repeatedly asserted by Apollo propagandists as JW refers to the likes of proven liars like Phil Webb and co, NASA themselves state in the report ‘ Analysis of Surveyor 3 material and photographs returned by Apollo 12 ‘ that-
‘The exterior camera surfaces showed discoloration patterns produced by lunar surface particles that were eroded and entrained on Surveyor by the *LM exhaust during landing*. **The particles were ejected almost horizontally at 40 m sec-** , struck the camera, and partially whitened its already dusty and radiation darkened surface.”
The Apollo 12 LM landed 155 m away from the Surveyor 3 landing site, according to the report, which is also interesting in the fact that during its 31 month stay on the lunar surface being exposed to micrometeoroids ,NOT ONE m/meteoroid impact was found on the Surveyor 3 equipment allegedly returned to Earth .
A statistic akin to standing in your garden in a rainstorm for a week without getting hit by one raindrop.
Which is *unfortunate* for NASA due to the inability to recreate M/M impacts on Earth due to the high speeds involved .
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720019081.pdf
The late Dave Mc Gowans ‘Wagging the Moondoggie ‘ and Jarrah Whites YT ‘Moonfaker’ series are 2 of the best resources exposing the Apollo hoax, as well as Aulis.com
It’s obvious that the moon landing was a hoax.
Because otherwise this would be a great achievement by white people.
And white people are evil.
Everyone knows that.
So obviously it never happened.
The decision to go to the moon was taken in 1961, and achieved in just 8 years.
If Von Braun and Arthur Rudolph had been given their head, it could have gone ahead in 1965, or earlier.
But for the ’57 hysteria over Sputnik, it would never have happened at all.
The serviceable Minerva nuclear rocket became available in the 1960s, making possible short duration missions to Mars.
There could and should have been a landing on Mars by the late 70s, 1980 at the latest.
With permanent settlements in space, mining of the asteroids, solar power stations in space, and much else besides now established facts.
But it never happened.
Instead, we had a few characters clowning around in moon buggies bringing back a few rocks.
It’s as if Columbus had gone ashore, scooped up some sand, gone back to Spain, and said, “Hi, Ferdinand! Hi, Isabella! See, I did it!!”
And they said, “Great, Chris! Well done! So that’s taken care of, and we can forget about the New World now.”
NASA was taken over by a Jewish Mafia under David Low and his kind in the late 60s.
NASA was being run down even before the moon landing.
Von Braun was frozen out, marginalised and sidelined by the J Mafia, and resigned.
They persecuted Rudolph viciously for years, stripped him of his citizenship, and left him a broken old man. The World Jewish Congress continued to mount international campaigns against him in Germany.
If Von Braun had lived longer, they would certainly have targeted him in a similar fashion.
But it doesn’t matter, because it was all a hoax and never happened.
Fight Nonsense, continuing our conversation from below, regarding Jarrah White, Phil Webb and their research about the Apollo moon missions…
Great! A sweeping, deeply entrenched defamatory statement to really get the ball rolling in an open-minded debate! You’re not very good at being objective, and therefore not very qualified to school anyone in fraud detection!
Nor do I know if you’re particularly qualified to dismantle Jarrah’s science for me. Your attitude so far has been anything but scientific. But sure, let’s continue to debate.
Jarrah’s exhaustive rebuttal of Webb’s moon rock debunk I find very compelling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLC54038F20A01C8E3&v=Ucc_AXP7F8g
I find it thorough (exhaustive even), consistent, and transparent.
Perhaps you could post Webb’s rebuttal to Jarrah’s rebuttal!?? As I suggested before, perhaps it’s best – given that our personal qualifications/vested interests aren’t known to the other – to let these ‘titans’ battle if out for us 🙂 Let us duel vicariously!
You could attempt a rebuttal yourself, I suppose, if Webb hasn’t been forthcoming….
However, you’ll need to watch the entire series of J’s rebuttal videos and, as I say, he is pretty exhaustive. I get the feeling you might prefer not to do that, as your single line dismissals/insults indicate you think you’re far above engaging with his work at this level. I wouldn’t want to demean you.
I also find Jarrah’s questions/observations about Van Allen belt radiation and solar flares very thorough, honest and interesting. He backs up his research well and isn’t needlessly abusive along the way! All good signs of someone reasoning from an honest, factually-based standpoint. Here is a link to his followup series, responding to Phil Webb’s criticisms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6eDgILh6Cs
And here is a link to his original video series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
And here are some amendments he published later on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzkmHaZJI8
I’ve seen Jarrah admit errors a few times, and amend his arguments accordingly (although he doesn’t seem to make many errors in these examples). I often find this trait, even taken by itself, a gauge of the quality of the research and the researcher. If you can’t admit error then you’re entrenched, and that’s as far from scientific as you can get.
Again, by all means respond with Webb’s rebuttal to Jarrah’s rebuttal!! On both subjects preferably, or either subject.
A worthless response as always, my friend. But why I say that? Because you don’t make any specific claims about which arguments of Jarrah’s you find “compelling”. You’re not willing to stick your neck out to defend any of those arguments. You just say “I found this video to be well argued.” So yes, not worth bothering with you if you’re just going to troll.
I take it Webb hasn’t made a response then. You originally rebutted me by posting Webb’s video, so I’m just following your lead! You could just admit that Webb hasn’t published a rebuttal. I believe THAT is how discussions work.
I posted Webb’s response videos because you plastered Jarrah’s videos on this comment forum and made a bunch of sweeping claims about their scientific quality which you subsequently failed to back up. You didn’t bother trying to defend specific claims or point out the ones you find compelling, because you know that to do so will invite a response that you won’t be able to counter using actual science. If you want do engage in something beyond concern-trolling/a stupid game of “My guy responded to yours but yours didn’t respond to mine! The moon landings are therefore fake! Hur hur hur!” , you could point to some of Jarrah’s specific claims that YOU find particularly compelling. Otherwise, it’s impossible to know what you’re actually crediting because a video by itself isn’t an argument; it’s a bunch of arguments. or are you saying that you find ALL of Jarrah’s claims compelling and that you would stand behind them? But then, what happens if I can debunk one of those claims?
So yeah, be specific rather than vague and evasive.
…and I, in turn, posted Jarrah’s response to Webb’s response! If it’s ok for you, then it’s ok for me. I actually watched your video. Did you do me the courtesy of watching mine?
If you mean I linked to his website FAQ and recommended it, then yes I did that.
mmmm yes. Like a book isn’t one argument, its a bunch of arguments. Or a prosecutor’s case isn’t one argument, it’s a bunch of arguments. That’s how one builds a case.
I have been quite explicit, I find Jarrah’s case compelling. There isn’t a standalone piece of evidence which ‘clinches it’ for me, rather he builds up a persuasive body of evidence (you know, like policemen and lawyers and investigative reporters). His science and research seem thorough and his reasoning logical. I particularly appreciate his stuff about van Allen belt radiation.
If you’re after a ‘clincher’ then I think you might be chasing a red herring, or at least oversimplifying.
In any case, I’m not going to do all the work for you… I’ve posted the links to his videos, watch one, just as I watched yours, and by all means choose one of his claims and debunk it.
Then his case will be one claim weaker. If it brings the house of cards crashing down, sure, I’ll acknowledge that.
You have to debunk it first, remember, and you’ll need to do better than your previous attempt (posting a link to a video, which you later criticised me for doing)…
You mean the ‘take-down’ which Jarrah very comprehensively squashes here – https://youtu.be/0eDaQo29E-w – and for which Webb later issued an apology, due to his blatant misrepresentations of Jarrah’s position?
https://youtu.be/JGq19L761eY
I would challenge you to do better, if I thought you could avoid descending into inarticulate ad hominem and ludicrous sweeping statement for long enough!
“Or a prosecutor’s case isn’t one argument, it’s a bunch of arguments. That’s how one builds a case.”
More evasions. You haven’t actually spelled out a case; you’ve simply said “here, read this.”
“I particularly appreciate his stuff about van Allen belt radiation.” Ok, let’s do that, then. Why do you particularly appreciate it?
“and for which Webb later issued an apology, due to his blatant misrepresentations of Jarrah’s position?
https://youtu.be/JGq19L761eY”
FFS, LOL!!!!!! He was being SARCASTIC. He was apologizing for thinking that Jarrah could actually use logic.
Does it bother you that actual scientists don’t think anything at all of Jarrah’s “compelling body of evidence”? Sure, there are ways of SOUNDING persuasive (especially to audiences who aren’t too particular about facts and just want to have their dogmatic convictions “confirmed”). Nothing that I’ve seen from Jarrah is scientifically compelling. He makes the following sophomoric mistakes:
I honestly think frustration has defeated your reason. You’re incapable of discussing anything without trying to draw me into some close-quarters slinging match!
Your only example so far of Jarrah White’s awful science has got nothing to do with science. It’s about whether von Braun gathered asteroids in Antartica (which he did).
You referred me a video, buddy! Don’t start moaning because I do likewise.
And as sarcastic as Webb was being he still issued a video called “MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #04C: Apologies & Corrections” in which he apologised for misrepresenting Jarrah’s position.
I am actually watching these videos now and I haven’t seen a single strong argument made by Webb.
Frankly I have no idea who the hell you are, but scientific you most certainly are not.
Stop appealing to consensus to fight your battles for you. If you want to do that then go to a pro-Apollo hangout and post stuff there.
If you can demonstrate you can be even a tiny bit openminded maybe a proper discussion can evolve naturally.
YOU posted a video and I watched it. I posted a video, have you watched it?
“Your only example so far of Jarrah White’s awful science has got nothing to do with science. It’s about whether von Braun gathered asteroids in Antartica (which he did).”
Which he didn’t, actually, and no actual geologist claims that he did. And nor is there any record of him doing so. No scientific data about the meteorites. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. And even you have to admit: it would be a bit stupid to send a rocket scientist to direct the collection of meteorites, now wouldn’t it? They couldn’t send a trained geologist? As is typical of moon landing denying claims, it’s a meme, repeated with unerring certitude until it becomes “truth” (Hitler’s prescription).
“And as sarcastic as Webb was being he still issued a video called “MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #04C: Apologies & Corrections” in which he apologised for misrepresenting Jarrah’s position.”
He did, but only because he had initially assumed that Jarrah was capable of using logic. To that extent, he “misrepresented” Jarrah. I watched the video before you had even suggested it.
There’s a terrible “sunken costs” vibe about you. It’s like you’ve decided that being able to post a video, regardless of what it actually says, suffices for you, because it gives you some emotional closure. But when it comes to actually coughing up an argument that YOU can defend, you come up empty. It’s actually very pitiful.
“Frankly I have no idea who the hell you are, but scientific you most certainly are not.”
An interesting take, coming from someone who can’t point to any actual evidence of von Braun’s meteorites other than memes.
“Stop appealing to consensus to fight your battles for you.”
Another interesting take, coming from someone who relies on pure consensus among conspiracists that von Braun collected meteorites in Antarctica.
“YOU posted a video and I watched it. I posted a video, have you watched it?”
Yes. it doesn’t show what you purport it shows.
You’re really trying to make this von Braun meteorite thing work for you, and I applaud your efforts, because there clearly isn’t anything else tangible you can point to in Webb’s snide and inaccurate video.
And apparently you think I’ve given you a huge gift here, because you’ve gone on and on about it! Similar to how Webb did, in fact…
However, here’s my clarification, taken from the Moon landing conspiracy theories wiki page:
It doesn’t mention gathering moonrock, true. However, given that the AAP was…
…it’s not inconceivable that von Braun et al had rocks on their mind. Other than that, it’s interesting circumstantial evidence but not terribly conclusive.
Clearly Webb was keen to downplay the scientific testing angle, since he engaged in some off-book speculation of his own, saying this trip was a morale-boosting retreat called a ‘boondoggle’ and not much of a field trip at all. Pure speculation. Why did he feel the need to do this?
But honestly, this whole Antarctica thing is flogging a rather inconclusive dead horse. It’s not science, it’s hearsay which YOU introduced. I AM giving you a free gift here by indulging this straw man argument and allowing you to deflect and evade.
What about all this hard science of which you speak, is it going to materialise?
Hit me up! I have some points/questions. Perhaps you could support your hasty generalisations and blanket dismissals of Jarrah’s research with some evidence?
— How is NASA – how are you – able to explain the seeming excellent health of all the returning astronauts, despite measurable solar flare activity documented during the Apollo missions and the van Allen Belt radiation they undoubtedly would have absorbed during their 30 degree trajectory leaving earth’s orbit, and again on their return journey? Please bear in mind van Allen’s initial maxed-out geiger counter readings, which he later downplayed but never admitted were wrong. Jarrah does a much more detailed job of presenting his research than I could possibly do here, the links are above.
— The LEM slow-scan descent footage appears shows the LEM’s boosters running until the LEM has basically touched down. If you listen to the cockpit voice recordings there is no indication they stop boosting and ‘coast’.
The Moon landing conspiracy theories debunk Wiki says – “The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path.”
It also says – “A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches (100 and 150 mm) of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.”
However, Neil Armstrong stated from the moon’s surface, “The descent engines did not leave a crater of any size…We’re essentially on a very level place here”‘
Despite what is claimed on wiki, I agree with Armstrong! These ‘scouring’ and ‘blast crater’ features AREN’T evident in any of the suit-mounted Hasselblad shots or the later LRO images of the lunar surface that I’ve seen. Can you show me where they are?
There clearly was dust to shift, as the astronaut’s foot prints are clearly seen indenting the surface, but there’s zero detectable disturbance beneath or surrounding the LEM. Can you explain this?
As I mentioned, the LEM video footage rules out the ‘coasting’ scenario I’ve seen touted on various forums.
More evidence, and copious references, are provided by Jarrah in his video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQNZQdJFtI
Here’s a link to the Moon Landings Conspiracy Theories Wiki page (it’s a hoax debunk page):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
“But honestly, this whole Antarctica thing is flogging a rather inconclusive dead horse. It’s not science, it’s hearsay which YOU introduced. I AM giving you a free gift here by indulging this straw man argument and allowing you to deflect and evade.”
Actually, I raised it as one clear example of Jarrah’s many false assertions and as an example of the propensity of moon landing deniers to perpetuate memes which rely on hearsay. But thank you for affirming that Jarrah’s is indeed a false assertion and that no evidence whatsoever exists for von Braun’s meteorites and the weight placed on them by legions of moon landing deniers.
“What about all this hard science of which you speak, is it going to materialise?”
Well, we can go by the hard science used by the entire world scientific community when it comes to the moon, and this has been produced countless times,
and reviewed and presented in countless scientific conferences, scientific papers in scientific journals used by actual scientists around the world, and in the continued stream of data and information sent back by orbiting probes (which use the data from Apollo to calibrate the accuracy of their instruments). If you can operate a simple-to-use search engine, you too can access all these findings. Getting moon landing deniers and other conspiracy-minded evaders to acknowledge materialized facts is, of course, the tricky part. Not even physical evidence brought back in the form of hundreds of kilograms of lunar rock – kept by NASA for distribution to geologists around the world on request – will suffice for them, such is the tenacity to which they cling to their dogma.
“— How is NASA – how are you – able to explain the seeming excellent health of all the returning astronauts, despite measurable solar flare activity
documented during the Apollo missions”
No, the solar flare occurred in between Apollos 16 & 17, in August 1972.
“and the van Allen Belt radiation they undoubtedly would have absorbed during their 30 degree trajectory leaving earth’s orbit, and again on their return
journey? Please bear in mind van Allen’s initial maxed-out geiger counter readings, which he later downplayed but never admitted were wrong.”
“Downplayed” is a loaded way of putting it. It presupposes that there is a problem being overlooked and that he decided to “ignore” it, when in fact Van
Allen, who worked closely as a consultant with NASA, didn’t consider these “maxed out Geiger readings” to be an actual problem – which they weren’t, once you take into account the materials used on the Apollo flights and the flight plan they adhered to. When you consider that the Soviets flew a biological cargo around the moon aboard Zond 5, independently of NASA, and safely returned living organisms (including animals) to Earth, it makes you wonder
whether Jarrah just has his math wrong. The alternative is that all astrophysicists and engineers really ARE imbeciles, and Jarrah is right. It’s
interesting to think about.
“Jarrah does a much more detailed job of presenting his research than I could possibly do here, the links are above.”
Unfortunately, Jarrah engages in brutal sophomorics when it comes to the Van Allen Belts. See here for a devastating take-down of his VAB claims. This video gets the math right, and uses the methodology that actual space scientists and engineers use to calculate radiation fluxes, unlike Jarrah: https://youtu.be/Nqy8Dmx3UlQ?list=PLg2XfFs-dM1jSN_jmHYbrNZeNceoGXh6T
It doesn’t matter at all, in and of itself, how detailed something is. The Bible is detailed, after all. So are some creationist pamphlets. Should we therefore reject evolution? Saying that something is detailed tells us nothing about the proportion of fluff to substance, or falsehood to fact. If one’s premises are incorrect, then one can only end up with bogus complexity because everything downstream of those premises is contaminated with faulty assumptions. The important thing is to get the premises correct so that the information gleaned downstream has scientific veracity.
For example, Jarrah claims that the exposure of the astronauts is several thousands of times what it actually was (that is, what it was according to the actual math used by astrophysicists and engineers, not Jarrah’s math, which no one uses), and this relies on simple errors on his part pertaining to things like the omnidirectionality of the electrons in the VAB (he mistakenly assumes that the electrons are only coming head on).
“— The LEM slow-scan descent footage appears shows the LEM’s boosters running until the LEM has basically touched down. If you listen to the cockpit
voice recordings there is no indication they stop boosting and ‘coast’.”
So what? They didn’t need to indicate every single thing they were doing seconds before touching down. With only a small amount of fuel remaining for the descent (BTW, why would they “fake” that?), Neil had discretion about how to fly the LEM; micromanaging an expert aviator isn’t exactly a recipe for safety. Mission Control was actually limiting the amount of information they were sending to the Eagle so as not to overload the astronauts with low priority tasks. You might not know this, but the astronauts weren’t obliged to report and seek authorization for every single action they performed, which would have been foolhardy given the communications delay coupled with the extreme concentration required at this stage of the descent. Neil rated the difficulty of landing the lander a 13 out of 10, due to the many sequences of actions and programs that had to be initiated all throughout the descent. Frankly, it seems like you’re scrambling for absolutely anything to complain about, and then when you find something, you assume that it “must” be a problem for the moon landing narrative because you’ve decided that the moon landings were fake. This is known as circular reasoning.
“The Moon landing conspiracy theories debunk Wiki says – “The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show
scouring of the surface along the final descent path.”
“It also says – “A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches (100 and 150 mm) of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.”
“However, Neil Armstrong stated from the moon’s surface, “The descent engines did not leave a crater of any size…We’re essentially on a very level place here”‘
“Despite what is claimed on wiki, I agree with Armstrong! These ‘scouring’ and ‘blast crater’ features AREN’T evident in any of the suit-mounted Hasselblad shots or the later LRO images of the lunar surface that I’ve seen. Can you show me where they are?”
Okay, I see where the confusion is coming from. It’s one of simple semantics pertaining to what one calls a “crater”. Armstrong meant something carved out into rock, and this is generally how moon landing deniers also use the term. The LEM’s thrust blew away some regolith; it didn’t leave an actual blast crater in the exposed rock. Blowing out some regolith isn’t really a “crater”. All you’ve done is to show that two people have used the term differently. But NASA itself never expected a blast crater in exposed rock (though it did expect one in regolith, if by “blast crater” one means a roughly circular indentation or clearing-away of regolith. These are two very different things, of course, and shouldn’t be lumped into one category). NASA’s unmanned probes that landed on the moon prior to Apollo 11 showed that the surface would be adequate for astronauts to walk on (some experts had worried that the regolith would be very deep and that astronauts attempting to traverse it might sink). Those probes revealed no “blast crater” in exposed rock, though of course they revealed some disturbance (clearing away of regolith) caused by the descent of the probes as it powered down onto the surface. The photos of the surface beneath the LEM agree with the expectations of NASA, though they disagree with the expectations of artists. Why moon landing deniers expect a “blast crater” (in the true sense) from a throttleable engine which was only producing about 1.5 lb/sqrt inch of ground pressure at the time of descent is anyone’s guess, but a working hypothesis is that they get too much of their science from children’s coloring books and too many of their expectations from Hollywood films. As for the scouring, I’m not sure. I’ll have to look at the LRO images again and look around for information on this (BTW, doesn’t it seem a bit odd to you that they would say that the LRO images show evidence of scouring if you’re claiming that they clearly don’t? Why would they make such a sophomoric mistake rather than just Paintshopping in something that could be pointed to as evidence of scouring?)
“There clearly was dust to shift, as the astronaut’s foot prints are clearly seen indenting the surface, but there’s zero detectable disturbance beneath or surrounding the LEM. Can you explain this?”
Of course I can – by accurately noting that your claim is completely false. The disturbance beneath the LEM is perfectly evident in the fact that the photos show bare rock beneath the vehicle, but regolith in the vicinity of the LEM, as well as some sign of a radial pattern emanating from a center. Here, take a look at one of the actual photos for once:
“As I mentioned, the LEM video footage rules out the ‘coasting’ scenario I’ve seen touted on various forums.”
Have you met with any success among actual scientists for your contradictory claim that alludes to regolith being blown away while denying that there is any sign of disturbance beneath the LEM even though such disturbance is perfectly evident in actual photos of the LEM? Also, do you think that NASA would have made such an obvious mistake after spending billions to pull off a gigantic hoax – that they would meticulously set everything up to look like a spacecraft had landed on the moon, only to “forget” to produce a proper blast crater that “should” have been there? It’s reminiscent of the common moon landing denying claim that there “should” be stars in the photos.
“More evidence, and copious references, are provided by Jarrah in his video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQNZQdJFtI”
I don’t think so, my friend. He’s made too many false claims for me to take him at all seriously at this point. But I could be wrong (who knows?). I look forward to his copious scientific contributions in the field of astrophysics, lunar science and/or radio communications. After all, he alludes to all sorts of “facts” that are apparently unbeknownst to the entire world scientific community – yet astrophysics, lunar science and radio communications have advanced quite nicely without his contributions or those of any other moon landing deniers.
Some sources:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf (talks about the conditions during the Apollo missions)
https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/82-how-come-van-allen-radiation-belts.html (talks about why the Van Allen belts aren’t nearly as deadly, if
precautions are taken, as moon landing deniers suppose them to be)
We both know, since you watched the video you said you watched, that Jarrah didn’t falsely assert anything. He said ‘It’s worth noting ‘ that von Braun was in the area at the time, and speculated as to why.
You are lying when you said Jarrah falsely asserted anything. Aren’t you?
I’ll reply to the rest if your post above.
Ah, wrong again. Jarrah made repeated references to “meteorites” and that this is what von Braun was there to collect when he attempted to insinuate that this “information” had been covered-up by Wikipedia.
“You are lying when you said Jarrah falsely asserted anything. Aren’t you?”
No. The only proven liars are you guys. Please face up to the fact that the engineers just don’t take you seriously. Like, at all. But you already know that. Don’t you?
JW answered the charge of insinuation from Webb in his rebuttal (which you watched) and Webb issued an apology!!
You know this, you watched the video, yet you carry on with this Proof by Assertion fallacy regardless!
It’s called lying.
Jarrah is the one who decided to jump on the “von Braun’s meteorites” bandwagon in the first place in order to milk it. Having been forced to retreat with his tail between his legs, he now has to claim that it’s merely an “interesting circumstantial evidence” (according to you) – yet it really isn’t even that. A better site for collecting such objects would have been Oman. There’s a world of difference between proposing a site as a test-bed for a mission and collecting material from the moon. If I decided that Arizona was a great place for training astronauts, how wold that imply that I have moon rock collections in Arizona on my mind? Moon rocks aren’t attracted to places on Earth by virtue of those places looking like them. They just fall where they fall.
“Webb issued an apology!!” Yes, for supposing that Jarrah was being deliberate in his deception. As it turns out, Jarrah was just being sloppy and careless with his “evidence” – not as bad as deliberate lying, to be sure, but still not the sort of thing one wants from a “researcher” whose “detailed videos” you’re promoting. When issuing sweeping assertions about an entire organization “faking” something, sloppiness and carelessness still amount to deception, especially when it’s so consistent. Excuses can only get one so far before the PATTERN of sloppiness is seen for what it is: a decision against rigor.
“It’s called lying.”
No, you’re thinking about the origin of the “von Braun’s meteorites” meme. I never promoted it, but you’re still trying to draw succor from it by pushing a faulty “This place was touted as a site to train astronauts, therefore it might well have seemed like a good place to collect moon meteorites” argument.
I think you’ve got as much traction from this aside by Jarrah as you can, don’t you? You’ve admitted Jarrah didn’t insinuate anything and that Webb was wrong.
Back up some of these other claims with timestamped youtube links, or quit poisoning the well, yeah?
I replied to your longer post above ^^^
“You’ve admitted Jarrah didn’t insinuate anything”
Then why wold he bring up the issue of von Braun’s “meteorites” in the first place? It certainly wasn’t to debunk them.
******Hi Fight Nonsense, I have answered this post in a new thread, above, as this is getting very skinny!****** ^^^^^^^^^
I’ll be happy to discuss which of Jarrah’s claims you find most compelling. That’s how discussions work. You don’t get to hide behind “Where’s WEBB’S response?”
Paperclip Nazi NASA : The “first moon landing” and Adolf Hitler
https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/nazi_adolf_hitler_chancellor.html
How appropriate than someone Gobell is posting so much disinformation and lies.
Keep up the anti-lunar psychops campaign going, well done. Do they pay you and MLS per post?
Hitler had no interest in the moon. And the Soviets had their own version of Paperclip to recruit German rocket scientists and engineers into their missile program. If the moonshot was all “fake”, why bother recruiting engineers at all? The Americans and Soviets already had working space launch vehicles by the time of Apollo. If you keyboard warrior “engineers” – who have contributing absolutely nothing to the sum total of human endeavor and knowledge – find it “obvious” that the US didn’t go to the moon, why would the Soviets and Americans have bothered to build more elaborate moonshot vehicles if they could have just used one of their existing ones?
All you deniers and debunkers are full of crap. The real “moon shot” was discovered here:
Watch it and weep
The very low quality of the TV footage is due to the process by which it was obtained: “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast” (as explained in this August 15, 2006 report by Reuters). To be precise, NASA claimed that the original transmission from the moon was in color video and that it was reshot from a monitor in 16 mm black-and-white (color from Apollo 14 on), using a kinescope, which is a lens focused on the monitor.
What we need for a proper investigation are the original NASA video recordings. Researchers have been asking for access to these films for decades, under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2006, they were given an answer. NASA spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said: “We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up.” 700 cartons of magnetic video tapes were missing, says the aforementioned report by Reuters, adding:
“NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them. The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money.”
Also allegedly lost are all the telemetry data, received and recorded to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship, as well as the astronauts’ heartbeat. Also lost are the blueprints for the lunar modules, the lunar rovers, and the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/07/15/landings/
“Also allegedly lost are all the telemetry data”
Fake news. Only a tiny proportion of all the telemetry data was lost. Please stop repeating worn-out memes as thought they’re somehow facts that NASA has “admitted” to.
“Also lost are the blueprints for the lunar modules, the lunar rovers, and the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.”
Oh?
“How is it possible that the Saturn V blueprints have been lost? IN A NUTSHELL: They haven’t. They’re preserved on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center and on paper at Rocketdyne and in US federal archives. The F-1 engines of the giant rocket are being studied in detail and used as engineering templates for the next generation of spacecraft. Three whole Saturn V rockets are on public display, available to anyone who cares to examine them.” https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/96-how-is-it-possible-that-saturn-v.html
Blueprints to purchase, scanned from original NASA artwork:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/saturnvprints.htm
https://www.masterreplicasgroup.com/products/saturn-v-poster
Saturn V flight manual on NASA’s own website: https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf
Saturn V technical information summary: http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Documents/Chapter5/saturnas501.pdf
Apollo Lunar Module documentation:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html
Apollo Operations Handbook – Lunar Module: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf
Lunar Roving Vehicle operations Handbook: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_OpsNAS8-25145.pdf
Command Service Module manual: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/SM2A-03-BK-II-%281%29.pdf
How much of the telemetry data remains?
Irrelevant
From all the missions? Most of it. But even though some of the Apollo 11 telemetry was lost, that’s still a Red Herring to whether Apollo missions after Apollo 11 could get to the moon because missions to the moon had ALREADY been flown BEFORE Apollo 11 (Apollos 8 & 10), so they clearly already knew how to get there, including from the unnamed probes that had been sent by the US. So in other words, you’re arguing “The lost telemetry proves it was fake. They were trying to cover up that they never went there. And the telemetry they retained? Oh, well…that must ALSO be fake! It’s not beyond their capabilities to fake telemetry data.” So they retained something that was fake because they were capable of fabricating it, but the losing of some of it proves it was fake, even though it’s all fake anyway? Wait…WHAT?
Best case scenario: a dubious claim to fame because of all
the cold war shenanigans.
The US gov. and its institutions can NOT be trusted.
NASA is unable to repeat what it claims to have achieved.
Their glory days seem to be a thing of the past.
It is not your fault, it is okay to shed a small tear.
A little sob or even a bit of crying in your pillow if you must.
I too have my cherished illusions which are also pressure points.
“The US gov. and its institutions can NOT be trusted.”
AGAIN with the stupid straw-man of “trust” as though we can’t fact-check and use science. But I guess you think that the Soviets just “trusted” their Cold War rival, and that that’s the reason they fully affirmed the authenticity of Apollo.
I like how easily you give up, Mishko. You start off with very specific claims, and then when you can’t defend them, you fall back on the stupid tropes and cliches of your intellectual brethren.
“A little sob or even a bit of crying in your pillow if you must.” Says the guy who pathetically loses every discussion he enters.
Being impervious to reason is not the same to winning an argument, Nonsense Fight…. I mean Fight Nonsense.
That’s supposed to be an “argument”? Wow. You seem rankled that I provided technical documents, while your friends here provided only wild speculations and fallacies.
Why would original footage going missing point to a fake moon landing when the copies have been retained? Who tries to cover up something by losing it but retains and distributes the copies of the thing to be covered-up?
“Also allegedly lost are all the telemetry data, received and recorded to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship, as well as the astronauts’ heartbeat. Also lost are the blueprints for the lunar modules, the lunar rovers, and the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.”
None of this is accurate. Only a small portion of the total telemetry data has been lost; the blueprints are stored at Rocketdyne, the Marshall Space Flight Center and US federal archives (you can even purchase prints of them from companies that scanned original NASA artwork); and there is reams and reams of data and information (including manuals and technical specifications, many of them with detailed schematics and richly labelled technical drawings) of all these components freely available on NASA’ own website, which has documents from all phases of the development of these systems. Many of them, including prototypes, unused variants and recovered vehicles, are still on display in air and space museums throughout the country.
“How is it possible that the Saturn V blueprints have been lost? IN A NUTSHELL: They haven’t. They’re preserved on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center and on paper at Rocketdyne and in US federal archives. The F-1 engines of the giant rocket are being studied in detail and used as engineering templates for the next generation of spacecraft. Three whole Saturn V rockets are on public display, available to anyone who cares to examine them.
https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/96-how-is-it-possible-that-saturn-v.html
There are no copies of the original footage as you surely know. The ‘copies’ are tapes of the TV transmission, which was recorded from a TV screen. They contain no information that would have been present in the original footage and tapes.
Blah blah blah. More opinionated conspirtaorial claptrap.
“No information”? They contain enough information for people like you to point to them as “evidence” that the moon landings were “obviously fake”. Are you saying saying that all the other moon landing’s footage has been lost? If not, why get hung up on some of it not being original? Whether or not footage is from the original copy, you would claim it to be fake in any case, just as you do with the footage from Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16 & 17. In other words, you’ve admitted (without realizing it, of course) that the footage being original is absolutely IRRELEVANT to you. It’s just another Red Herring you can cling to to “prove” that the landings were fake.
Fight Nonsense. NASA use a mystical laser to determine lunar distance. This laser disobeys the inverse square law which usually dictates how electromagnetic radiation propagates in space. NASA’s laser illuminates a circle of approximately 20 miles diameter. This translates to 804 million square metres. The moon has an albedo or reflectivity of 30%. Let’s say NASA’s retro reflector on the moon has perfect reflectivity of 100%. Allowing for the relatively weak reflectivity of the lunar surface we still see that this return overwhelms the retro reflector signal by a factor of 241 million. I have never understood this and I’m glad you’re on hand to explain it. Thanks in advance.
Again, you ignore that albedo has nothing to do with the quality of the light reflected by a laser. A laser pointed at the moon will reflect light of a different type than light reflected off its surface from the sun. There’s nothing to “explain” other than your ignorance and the mystical “physics” you’re relying on. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the fact that not a single scientist agrees with you and that highly accurate measurements of the moon’s distance continue to be made by international scientists thanks to the reflectors.
https://www.rt.com/news/452091-moon-inside-earth-atmosphere/
The wonderful go-getter goal oriented mad NASA scientists have stopped
over-achieving. Now suddenly they bring up the Van Allen Belt,
but fail to buckle up and kick radiation ass. (or suck it up)
They are living and breathing examples of devolution.
NASA and its claims and machinations are an integral part of a long con.
The biggest and longest con: The Beast System.
Fvck NASA and the hobby horse they keep racing.
Unfortunately, no scientist or engineer agrees with you, buddy. But keep up the good “work”.
The moon is very bright. Bright enough that we can see our way on Earth by its light. If I observe it it through a 10 inch Schmidt Newtonian it is bright enough to strain the eye. Imagine how it would appear through the 3 m reflector of the Apache point laser ranging station in New Mexico. It would probably be blinding. Yet NASA claim to identify single photons -perhaps two or three in the course of a minute – against this background of untold quadrillions of photons.
It is of course too ridiculous to contemplate.
It is a physical impossibility.
The laser ranging experiment cannot and does not exist.
It seems most suspicious.
I’m so sorry that you haven’t heard of experimental controls.
“It is a physical impossibility.” According to absolutely no scientist.
“Yet NASA claim to identify single photons -perhaps two or three in the course of a minute – against this background of untold quadrillions of photons.”
Straw-man argument and naked assertion fallacies. Why do you weirdly pretend that all photons are the same, as though scientists have no way of distinguishing photos with different wavelengths? I don’t know what textbook you’re getting your physics from, but it must be one with entire chapters missing.
“The laser ranging experiment cannot and does not exist.
It seems most suspicious.”
Only if one relies on sophomoric assumptions. Unfortunately for you, the Soviets and Americans were both able to distinguish between laser light reflected off of the SURFACE of the moon from the moon’s natural reflected light – in the early 1960s, well before any reflectors had been placed on the surface. Reflectors dramatically increase the number of photons returned by lasers pointed at the pertinent region of the moon, as well as the accuracy of the range-finding. Far from being “most suspicious”, it’s actually basic principles of optical physics, and scientists were already envisaging its use after the success of the surface-bouncing laser experiments.
“Unfortunately for you, the Soviets and Americans were both able to distinguish between laser light reflected off of the SURFACE of the moon from the moon’s natural reflected light – in the early 1960s, well before any reflectors had been placed on the surface.”
That’s a relief. At least you’re not gonna spout the nonsense that the ability to bounce lasers off the moon proves that man has walked on the moon as favoured by a large number of NASbArats .
Dear Lunar Landing Doubters,
You woke up today, and at some point you went online and posted yourcomment; it happened, it is real, it’s not a figment of our imagination,nor a conspiracy that you actually did this.
Similarly, 400,000 people woke up each morning for 10+ years, they went to work, delivered the moon landings; it happened, it is real, it’s not a figment of their or our imagination, nor a conspiracy that they did this.
Moreover, the Russians and Chinese monotored every step, every launch and all the transmissions from the missions; it happened, it is real what they did, it’s not a figment of their or our imagination, nor a conspiracy that they did this.
Elsewhere, For 911 i agree that the official story is unreal, and the reason that I think this is that REAL firefighters and other witnesses who were ON SITE that day saw something different to the official story. Thereafter, TENS of THOUSANDS of architects, materials science experts, construction engineers SCIENTIFICALLY proved the official narrative was not 100% correct.
Only the weak minded and easily deluded think that the hundreds of thousands of engineers and technicians were lying, and that the massive might of the huge USSR and Chinese military and scientific establishment could not detect a fraud according to some guy living in his mother’s basement claims on YouTube.
It’s my last post on the topic, you are utterly deluded if you think these missions did not occur, get some therapy.
Love and kisses,
Frank
Dear Frank,
Everything you say about 911 is spot on. The Gvmt lied through their teeth, just as they have been doing since the beginning of time..
The ‘Moon Landing’ never happened…
How in god’s name did they get through the van allen belts, in an aluminium box wearing aluminium suits???
The van allen belts are NOT coloured like the rainbow, they are invisible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeKRk8ivaQQ
‘Allegedly’ 6 flawless missions to the moon, no casualties, no cancer, no technical difficulties with less technology than the most primitive phone today… And yet, we can’t duplicate it today. Yeah. Sure.
According to NASA we had the technology but destroyed it and its too hard to get back Gene Kranz said we lost all the telemetry tapes and even if we had them we don’t have a machine to play them on!!
it was all just ONE GIANT LIE FOR MANKIND!!!!
xxx
And here’s more:
Kubrick made the film….
https://worldtruth.tv/stanley-kubrick-admits-he-helped-nasa-fake-moon-landings-in-new-film/
Of course his daughter denied it??? Well she didn’t want to mess with the evil Gvmt….
Re : Kubrick
Appendix: the Kubrick hypothesis
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/07/15/landings/
The Fake Apollo 11 Moon Landing : JFK, Wernher von Braun, JFK Jr., Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut and Anne Frank
https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/moon_landing_20_july_1969.html
When I used to drive past Stanley Kubrick’s house on the way to and from work, I often wondered why he kept the moon in his back garden. I mean, it is rather large so it did stick out a bit, even more than the big yellow thing he had had constructed on the MGM lot while he was filming 2001. It wasn’t until I was having lunch in a Borehamood pub some time later that I overheard a pissed production accountant telling a continuity girl that NASA had vetoed building the sets for some secret film he was doing for them because of the expense and had transported the real thing all the way down to Herts instead. Stanley was reportedly so chuffed because it made everything look so much more real documentary-ish that he forgot to bill them for the subsequent rehabilitation of his petunias. Not many people know that.
Now that really made me laugh … 🙂 especially the petunias 😉
Maggie again, with her fake news “contributions” from pathetic fake news websites.
“Allegedly 6 flawless missions to the moon …”
Not quite.
The Apollo 13 theatrics were designed to engage the audience.
There had to be some sort of problem, otherwise the project would be seen as being too perfect.
So, like the UA93 “Let’s Roll” nonsense vis Todd Beamer et al, the TV believers had to be fed some heroics so that they could buy into a dramatic hook …
Same old same old methods, by the same old same old cabal …
Akin to the conjurer picking your pocket while you are mesmerised with the other hand …
MG
“The Apollo 13 theatrics were designed to engage the audience.”
Ah, the pathetic excuse of someone who doesn’t want to own up to the fact that Apollo 13 near-disaster actually put a massive dent in public enthusiasm for the program and resulted in moon missions beyond Apollo 17 being cancelled.
Aahhh, so you’re saying that in “reality”, they must have “lost the technology” to FAKE going to the moon, and that’s why no one’s FAKED it since 1972.
Please learn about the actual reasons that the manned lunar program was cancelled. They’re actually very banal: waning public interest (especially after the Apollo 13 near-disaster), the enormous costs involved, the fact that they had already beaten the Soviets, and the lack of political expediency in continuing such a program given the budgetary environment.
“And yet, we can’t duplicate it today. Yeah. Sure.” Who told you “we can’t”? Please learn the difference between “they don’t currently have a launch vehicle for taking people to the moon”, and”‘they’re not technologically capable of developing such a launch vehicle.” These are vastly different propositions. Using your logic, one would have to say that the Space Shuttle was also “fake” because it was decommissioned years ago and the US currently has to rely on Russia to get its people to the ISS. I guess the Space Shuttle is fake, then, because the US “can’t duplicate” taking its people into space.
“The van allen belts are NOT coloured like the rainbow, they are invisible.” Literally no actual scientist ever claimed that the belts are colored like a rainbow, so thank you for this complete Red Herring fallacy. Of course, the belts can still be DETECTED and MEASURED.
“‘Allegedly’ 6 flawless missions to the moon” “Flawless”? Ummm…no. Learn a bit of actual history before posting ignorant assertions: https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/74-how-is-it-possible-that-everything.html
“How is it possible that everything went so smoothly? IN A NUTSHELL: It didn’t. NASA went out of its way to give this impression, but the truth was quite different. Three astronauts died on the launch pad (Apollo 1). Apollo 13 suffered an explosion that scrubbed its lunar landing and almost killed the crew. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning at liftoff. Apollo 11 had a computer overload as it was landing on the Moon and lost control during rendezvous. Every mission had its significant malfunctions, equipment failures and close calls, and many crews were struck by nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, but all this wasn’t widely publicized.
The only astronauts who died in the Apollo program died on the ground, because someone had decided to pump something like 99% pure oxygen into the capsule instead of the usual gas mix.
All the other minor issues on mission resulted in zero deaths, which adds to the implausibility, if we are being entirely rational and unemotional.
Compare that to the history of ocean exploration, the early history of powered flight, breaking land-speed records etc.
People die during dangerous experimentation. The only exception to this rule is the Moon missions.
It’s just another drip of implausibility. No, it’s not proof the Apollo missions were less than genuine. I am still open to the possibility they were. But, sadly, there is so much pointing to the possibility they were not.
We don’t really know how many died, not everything would have been publicly available. This all occured during the heights of the Cold War and there was a military imperative to become dominant over the Soviets in this area at least. Any admission of failure would have been great propaganda for the Soviets and indeed the latter were watching every mission and receiving every transmission from them. The Soviets surely also lost many people.
“The only astronauts who died in the Apollo program died on the ground, because someone had decided to pump something like 99% pure oxygen into the capsule instead of the usual gas mix.”
You’re sure about that, champ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mercury#Pilot_accommodations:
“A cabin atmosphere of pure oxygen at a low pressure of 5.5 psi (equivalent to an altitude of 24,800 feet (7,600 m)) was chosen, rather than one with the same composition as air (nitrogen/oxygen) at sea level.[78] This was easier to control,[79] avoided the risk of decompression sickness (“the bends”),[80][n 7] and also saved on spacecraft weight.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1#Pure_oxygen_atmosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1#Choice_of_pure_oxygen_atmosphere:
“Other oxygen incidents
Several fires in high-oxygen test environments had occurred before the Apollo fire. In 1962, USAF Colonel B. Dean Smith was conducting a test of the Gemini space suit with a colleague in a pure oxygen chamber at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas when a fire broke out, destroying the chamber. Smith and his partner narrowly escaped.[44] On February 16, 1965, United States Navy Divers Fred Jackson and John Youmans were killed in a decompression chamber fire at the Experimental Diving Unit in Washington, D.C., shortly after additional oxygen was added to the chamber’s atmospheric mix.[45][46]
Other oxygen fire occurrences are documented in reports archived in the National Air and Space Museum,[47] such as:
– Selection of Space Cabin Atmospheres. Part II: Fire and Blast Hazaards [sic] in Space Cabins. (Emanuel M. Roth; Dept of Aeronautics Medicine and Bioastronautics, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research. c.1964–1966)
– “Fire Prevention in Manned Spacecraft and Test Chamber Oxygen Atmospheres.” (Manned Spacecraft Center. NASA General Working Paper 10 063. October 10, 1966)
Incidents had also occurred in the Soviet space program, but due to the government’s policy of secrecy, these were not disclosed until well after the Apollo 1 fire. Cosmonaut Valentin Bondarenko died on March 23, 1961, from burns sustained in a fire while participating in a 15-day endurance experiment in a high-oxygen isolation chamber, less than three weeks before the first Vostok crewed space flight; this was disclosed on January 28, 1986.[48][49][50]
During the Voskhod 2 mission in March 1965, cosmonauts Pavel Belyayev and Alexei Leonov could not completely seal the spacecraft hatch after Leonov’s historic first walk in space. The spacecraft’s environmental control system responded to the leaking air by adding more oxygen to the cabin, causing the concentration level to rise as high as 45%. The crew and ground controllers worried about the possibility of fire, remembering Bondarenko’s death four years earlier.[48]:457
On January 31, 1967, four days after the Apollo 1 fire, United States Air Force airmen William F. Bartley, Jr., and Richard G. Harmon were killed in a flash fire while tending laboratory rabbits in the Two Man Space Environment Simulator, a pure oxygen chamber at the School of Aerospace Medicine at Brooks Air Force Base.[51][52][53][54][55] Like the Apollo 1 fire, the School fire was caused by an electrical spark in a pure oxygen environment. The widows of the Apollo 1 crew sent condolence letters to Bartley and Harmon’s families.[55]”
Tell us, then: what’s with your naked assertion fallacy that a pure oxygen atmosphere had no rationale behind it? In your RIDICULOUS fantasy universe supposition that you want us to swallow, someone just randomly (or maliciously as part of a “conspiracy”) “decided”, out of the blue, to use a pure oxygen atmosphere. And then Apollo KEPT ON using pure oxygen. Tell us: why would they keep on using pure oxygen – and announcing it – if the missions were faked and the cause of the Apollo 1 disaster was “someone decided to use pure oxygen”?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/vintagespace/2019/04/13/apollo-pure-oxygen/:
“It was only after the Apollo 1 fire that NASA changed the cabin environment for launch; it was too late to change the cabin for the full mission. When the spacecraft was on the launch pad, it was an oxygen-nitrogen mix. Those gases were bled out and replaced with pure oxygen for the remained for the mission.”
If the missions was “faked”, why would time constraints have been relevant at all? Why not just say that the pure oxygen atmosphere was replaced with a mixed atmosphere for the entirety of the mission durations?
Oh, and are you saying that Armstrong’s near death in the Gemini capsule – which was part of the Apollo program – was faked as well because he didn’t actually die?
“All the other minor issues on mission resulted in zero deaths, which adds to the implausibility, if we are being entirely rational and unemotional.”
You’re saying that engineers wouldn’t know that the project they were working on wouldn’t get people to the moon? I think it’s emotion that prevents you from having a rational assessment of what engineers do and how they collaborate with one another.
Compare that to the history of ocean exploration, the early history of powered flight, breaking land-speed records etc.
“People die during dangerous experimentation. The only exception to this rule is the Moon missions.”
You’re saying that ocean exploration has always involved a program involving hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists and technicians checking and double checking each other’s work and where a dedicated support staff of hundreds of engineers were on stand-by to provide diagnostics for problems that arose?
Do you see why I don’t take you at all seriously? If naked assertion and apples-and-oranges fallacies are the best you can come up with, then why even bother? I’ll say it again: search engines are your FRIEND. But maybe you just don’t have time, given your busy schedule as an aerospace engineer, to bother with even minimal overtures to fact checking? Let us know.
“The only astronauts who died in the Apollo program died on the ground, because someone had decided to pump something like 99% pure oxygen into the capsule instead of the usual gas mix.”
You’re sure about that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mercury#Pilot_accommodations:
“A cabin atmosphere of pure oxygen at a low pressure of 5.5 psi (equivalent to an altitude of 24,800 feet (7,600 m)) was chosen, rather than one with the same composition as air (nitrogen/oxygen) at sea level.[78] This was easier to control,[79] avoided the risk of decompression sickness (“the bends”),[80][n 7] and also saved on spacecraft weight.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1#Pure_oxygen_atmosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1#Choice_of_pure_oxygen_atmosphere:
“Other oxygen incidents Several fires in high-oxygen test environments had occurred before the Apollo fire. In 1962, USAF Colonel B. Dean Smith was conducting a test of the Gemini space suit with a colleague in a pure oxygen chamber at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas when a fire broke out, destroying the chamber.
Smith and his partner narrowly escaped.[44] On February 16, 1965, United States Navy Divers Fred Jackson and John Youmans were killed in a decompression
chamber fire at the Experimental Diving Unit in Washington, D.C., shortly after additional oxygen was added to the chamber’s atmospheric mix.[45][46]
Other oxygen fire occurrences are documented in reports archived in the National Air and Space Museum,[47] such as:
– Selection of Space Cabin Atmospheres. Part II: Fire and Blast Hazaards [sic] in Space Cabins. (Emanuel M. Roth; Dept of Aeronautics Medicine and
Bioastronautics, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research. c.1964–1966)
– “Fire Prevention in Manned Spacecraft and Test Chamber Oxygen Atmospheres.” (Manned Spacecraft Center. NASA General Working Paper 10 063. October 10, 1966)
Incidents had also occurred in the Soviet space program, but due to the government’s policy of secrecy, these were not disclosed until well after the
Apollo 1 fire. Cosmonaut Valentin Bondarenko died on March 23, 1961, from burns sustained in a fire while participating in a 15-day endurance experiment
in a high-oxygen isolation chamber, less than three weeks before the first Vostok crewed space flight; this was disclosed on January 28, 1986.[48][49][50]
During the Voskhod 2 mission in March 1965, cosmonauts Pavel Belyayev and Alexei Leonov could not completely seal the spacecraft hatch after Leonov’s
historic first walk in space. The spacecraft’s environmental control system responded to the leaking air by adding more oxygen to the cabin, causing the
concentration level to rise as high as 45%. The crew and ground controllers worried about the possibility of fire, remembering Bondarenko’s death four
years earlier.[48]:457
On January 31, 1967, four days after the Apollo 1 fire, United States Air Force airmen William F. Bartley, Jr., and Richard G. Harmon were killed in a flash fire while tending laboratory rabbits in the Two Man Space Environment Simulator, a pure oxygen chamber at the School of Aerospace Medicine at Brooks Air Force Base.[51][52][53][54][55] Like the Apollo 1 fire, the School fire was caused by an electrical spark in a pure oxygen environment. The widows of the Apollo 1 crew sent condolence letters to Bartley and Harmon’s families.[55]”
Tell us, then: what’s with your naked assertion fallacy that a pure oxygen atmosphere had no rationale behind it? In your RIDICULOUS fantasy universe
supposition that you want us to swallow, someone just randomly (or maliciously as part of a “conspiracy”) “decided”, out of the blue, to use a pure oxygen atmosphere. And then Apollo KEPT ON using pure oxygen. Tell us: why would they keep on using pure oxygen – and announcing it – if the missions were faked and the cause of the Apollo 1 disaster was “someone decided to use pure oxygen”?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/vintagespace/2019/04/13/apollo-pure-oxygen/:
“It was only after the Apollo 1 fire that NASA changed the cabin environment for launch; it was too late to change the cabin for the full mission. When the spacecraft was on the launch pad, it was an oxygen-nitrogen mix. Those gases were bled out and replaced with pure oxygen for the remained for the mission.”
If the missions was “faked”, why would time constraints have been relevant at all? Why not just say that the pure oxygen atmosphere was replaced with a mixed atmosphere for the entirety of the mission durations?
Oh, and are you saying that Armstrong’s near death in the Gemini capsule – which was part of the Apollo program – was faked as well because he didn’t
actually die?
“All the other minor issues on mission resulted in zero deaths, which adds to the implausibility, if we are being entirely rational and unemotional.”
You’re saying that engineers wouldn’t know that the project they were working on was in fact incapable of getting people to the moon (according to you)? I think it’s emotion that prevents you from having a rational assessment of what engineers do and how they collaborate with one another.
“Compare that to the history of ocean exploration, the early history of powered flight, breaking land-speed records etc.
“People die during dangerous experimentation. The only exception to this rule is the Moon missions.”
You’re saying that ocean exploration has always involved a program involving hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists and technicians checking and
double checking each other’s work and where a dedicated support staff of hundreds of engineers were on stand-by to provide diagnostics for problems that
arose?
“How in god’s name did they get through the van allen belts, in an aluminium box wearing aluminium suits???”
Ah, just aluminium, was it? Sounds like a case of argumentum ad populum by an ignorant moon landing denier who is too lazy to stop blathering for a minute instead of doing some actual research for a change.
“‘Allegedly’ 6 flawless missions to the moon, no casualties, no cancer, no technical difficulties”
What’s that, sport? “No technical dificulties”? Not according to the historical record. Here, educate yourself:
“How is it possible that everything went so smoothly? IN A NUTSHELL: It didn’t. NASA went out of its way to give this impression, but the truth was quite different. Three astronauts died on the launch pad (Apollo 1). Apollo 13 suffered an explosion that scrubbed its lunar landing and almost killed the crew. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning at liftoff. Apollo 11 had a computer overload as it was landing on the Moon and lost control during rendezvous. Every mission had its significant malfunctions, equipment failures and close calls, and many crews were struck by nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, but all this wasn’t widely publicized.”
https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/74-how-is-it-possible-that-everything.html
“According to NASA we had the technology but destroyed it and its too hard to get back”
Except NASA never said this and you can view the “destroyed technology” in air and space museums around the country. You can also view voluminous documentation of the technology and countless technical drawings, schematics and manuals for components and Apollo spacecraft on NASA’s free to use website.
“Gene Kranz said we lost all the telemetry tapes”
Another disgusting lie and example of meme-mongering peddled by moon landing deniers. Only a small fraction pf all the telemetry data was lost.
“and even if we had them we don’t have a machine to play them on!!”
Wait: so why destroy it?
I guess you’re saying that, since NASA “faked” Apollo, that NASA lost the technology to FAKE the moon landings. Why haven’t they FAKED it again? Those 60s and early 70s film studios must have been really advanced 😉
Disgusting.
If you would pick sincere hostility over condescension, your arguments
would perhaps evoke more interest because of sympathy.
Using both I am more inclined to have the kneejerk response of
So? / So what / SFW / And? / So now what. But that is just me.
In those days the men allegedly were built of sterner stuff and had true grit.
Dear Frank
Your strawman :
“Only the weak minded and easily deluded think that the hundreds of thousands of engineers and technicians were lying …”
Maybe you could provide some evidence that folk have suggested this ?
Nobody I know of has.
Why do we need hundreds of thousands of engineers and technicians to lie in order to make the moon landings a hoax ?
Why do you imply that engineers and technicians would know the whole truth of the project ?
It is a very flimsy position to assert and has no bearing on the possibility that the entire world was misled.
MG
“Maybe you could provide some evidence that folk have suggested this ?” Aahhh, so they were TRICKED is what you’re saying – and not only for a year, but for over a decade and all the way up to the present day. Every single one of them – tricked. But YOU could “crack” the “conspiracy”?
“Why do you imply that engineers and technicians would know the whole truth of the project ?”
Why do you imply it would even be possible to trick EVERY SINGLE engineer and expert working on the project about the “true” goal of the program, all the way through the development process, all throughout the flights, all throughout the debriefings, all throughout the scientific analyses of the results of the missions?
Become acquainted with basic engineering and logistical principles, please. Then you wouldn’t have to wallow in a cartoon universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXb4Wu5_kv4
Compartmentalisation. Manhattan Project is also an example of this.
What Happened on the Moon?
AULIS Documentary Film
https://www.aulis.com/moon_pt1.htm
Would you be able to specify what argument in the documentary you find particularly compelling? I welcome the chance to be proven wrong about everything I’ve been saying.
Paperclip Nazi and NASA rocket man, Wernher von Braun, chief architect of the Apollo Saturn V, was born on March 23, 1912
666 months, 666 weeks later …
they faked the Apollo 11 moon landing on July 20, 1969
https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/moon_landing_20_july_1969.html
Correction :
666 months, 666 days later …
That’s pretty desperate and pathetic. You just looked for a way to find the number 666. Since the number of months between 1912 and 1969 isn’t 666, you kept going until you found something. If it has been exactly 666 months, you would be pointing to that as proof of something sinister. Sure, you can find whatever number you want in anything so long as you’r not particular about the units you’re using or what their significance is when you bang them together like a toddler. Thanks for the meaningless fact you posted. Care to explain why anyone should be impressed by this exercise in tabloid numerology?
Fight nonsense
If you cannot distinguish between simple date arithmetic and whatever it is you mean by the term, “numerology”, then you may have issues comprehending further explanation.
Here they are anyway.
https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/introduction.html
May I suggest that you think about losing the childish invective also.
MG
If this is the sort of pathetic “evidence you’re forced to rely on, then you’ve admitted that you have nothing but a hurt ego.
Timing matters, and so does location/setting, and symbolism/signals.
I concur with Mr. T in pitying the fool that does not.
Two weeks after receiving Johnson’s memo, Kennedy made his famous speech to Congress ( May 25, 1961 ) :
911 days later, JFK was murdered …
https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/moon_landing_20_july_1969.html
You’re saying that the conspirators advertise their conspiracies by weaving them into fake coincidences?
Introduction
https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/introduction.html
That’s conjecture and stupidity, not evidence.
Analysing The Astronauts – Full Episode
Videos like this are a truly modern phenomenon: they lament that the astronauts weren’t behaving like modern sports stars by grabbing their crotches, thumping their chests and pointing up to heaven. They also ignore all the footage where the astronauts are actually jovial, smiling and making jokes. This is known as “cheery picking”.
About Peter Hyatt
https://www.hyattanalysis.com/about-hyatt-analysis/
Peter Hyatt is a Statement Analyst and instructor who teaches statement analysis and analytical interviewing to law enforcement and corporate America. He has authored the investigator training manual for DHHS, State of Maine, as well as the book Wise As a Serpent; Gentle as a Dove. He has been interviewed extensively on radio and television, including ABC’s “20/20”, the nationally televised program, “Crime Watch Daily” and “Taken Too Soon: The Katelyn Markham Story” documentary. With Richard Hall, he gave extensive information into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. “Embedded Confession” is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slziMpXYjJo&t=178s
Mr. Hyatt leads an elite team of professional investigators from across the US, Canada & Western Europe in solving both live and cold cases. He’s written the certification training program for investigators, HR professionals, psychologists, attorneys and other professionals from around the nation, the UK and Canada. He authored two training manuals in Statement Analysis, totally more than 700 pages of analysis, analytical interviewing, psychological profiling, and Anonymous Author Identification.
He currently offers advanced psycho-linguistic profiling via courses, seminars and as a consultant.
______________________________
Fight nonsense
Your expertise in statement and behavioural analysis is ?
MG
You didn’t address what I said. I didn’t ask you about Hyatt; I asked you why the video only shows the astronauts being somber, and ignores the parts where they’re being jovial. By pretending that the astronauts were only somber, it automatically sets a different context for whatever analysis of their speech and mannerisms follows.
Moon landing deniers: “This one person with some credentials is backing me up on this. Therefore, the Apollo missions were faked.”
Also moon landing deniers: “These millions of other credentialed people who say that the moon landings were real are just bought off by the Illuminati.”
“Your expertise in statement and behavioural analysis is ?”
The same as yours: zero. Which is why I’m asking why no video of the astronauts being jovial is analyzed. Hmmm?
Besides, for you to talk about expertise of any kind is a bit rich, given your penchant for spamming this comment forum with your fraudulent “sources” and claims.
Are the astronauts all members of a freemasonic lodge?
Not illuminati, yet sworn brethren whose idea of fellowship
does NOT necessarily include the profane masses.
Again with the straw-manning. Bad kitty, no treat!
Apollo moon rocks lost in space? No, lost on Earth
https://phys.org/news/2009-09-apollo-moon-lost-space-earth.html
‘Moon rock’ given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
Except it wasn’t “given” by Armstrong and Aldrin, or by anyone at NASA. Here, educate yourself about this pernicious meme:
“How come the Moon rock donated to Holland is fake? IN A NUTSHELL: Because it’s not a NASA Moon rock. Everything points to a mistake or to a hoax orchestrated by two Dutch artists in 2006. NASA has never authenticated the “rock” (there are no documents tracing its origins), it’s far too big to be a donated lunar sample, and its background story is nonsensical. It was reportedly donated privately in 1969 to a retired prime minister instead of being given, as was customary, to a representative of the then-current Dutch government; it wasn’t put on public display as a Moon rock would have deserved; and real donated Moon rocks were encapsulated in transparent plastic, while this one is not.” https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/98-how-come-moon-rock-donated-to.html
It’s hard work, isn’t it, Fight nonsense? Very hard work. I admire your tenacity.
I’m with Mark on the numbers in many ways – the significance of the number of days between events is not really my thing but that doesn’t mean I don’t doubt their significance and I certainly know that Masonic numerology is very important to the power elite.
Regardless, numbers do not provide evidence in any shape or form we didn’t go to the moon. Numbers can only ever support other convincing evidence … of which I see none.
Grissom, Chaffee and White
https://web.archive.org/web/20081025052534/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Grissom.htm
search : Gus Grissom lemon
Grissom was dissatisfied with how aspects of the program were coming along. NASA used his criticisms to improve the program, as they did with the criticisms of the rest of the astronaut corps. As in all large-scale engineering exercises, the input of professionals is used to address shortcomings and failings. Note how after his death, the program was delayed and the safety procedures tightened and revamped.
The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?
http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/
Well written piece. Makes a nice change for OffG in recent months.
The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/07/15/landings/
No actual aerospace engineer, astronomer, geologist, or space program historian takes this supposition at all seriously. Given the very poor quality of “arguments” you’ve used to try to “prove” that the moon landings were faked, one can easily see why. I would recommend doing some basic fact-checking using Google before posting memes such as that NASA “gave Holland fake moon rock”. A good resource to educate yourself and to dispel many pernicious and thoroughly debunked moon hoaxer memes is the site http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com. There, you’ll find the scientific rebuttal to dozens of common hoaxer claims which are in circulation and presented as “facts” by hoaxers who have not done any homework.
Could you please, by the way, provide us with some pointers about what arguments in this article you find particularly compelling? Without that context, it’s impossible to judge what you’re actually trying to convey. Have you actually fact-checked the arguments in the article? Which ones do you think are more compelling than others? Which ones do you consider not so compelling? Be precise.
The nuts are out in force again.
The Russians and Chinese were tracking all the missions, and their radio signals, and would have immediately seized upon the huge propaganda victory during the Cold War if they had got the slightest inkling that the American mission were not not successful, let alone not happening.
Add to that 400,000 people working on the programme as well as the millions who witnessed it with their own eyes.
The Manhattan Project
130,000 quiet folk …
That’s right – 130,000 quiet folk working in a classified project where everyone was ordered to keep their mouths shut AND where the goal wasn’t announced to the world. The US didn’t announce to the world: “We’re building nukes, guys.”
Apollo, on the other hand, was a publicly announced program, with a publicly announced goal, with hundreds of thousands of people working together to fulfill that common goal.
Are you saying that most of these people were being continuously duped on an ongoing basis? Are you saying that even after all the information sharing among different groups developing the various systems and components to make sure that the systems worked together as part of a common package, all the testing that was done, all the adjustments, refinements and advancements made after consultation with other systems managers, all the technical knowledge accumulated – that AFTER and DESPITE all this, the “people in the know” STILL chose to fake the outcome and risk getting caught in a lie instead of just doing it for real and not risk getting caught in a lie?
Please refer to this video about why the logistical and organizational requirements that would be needed by such a conspiracy actually disprove that a conspiracy like this could ever have taken place:
– Not a SINGLE engineer, technician, scientist or program manager has ever come forward to say that their role in Apollo was a cover story for a fake program.
– Not a SINGLE engineer, technician, scientist, Communist party official, or KGB/GRU intelligence officer from the former Soviet Union has ever come forward to claim that the Soviet state “knew” that it was “fake”.
– Not a SINGLE third-party scientific source monitoring the Apollo missions has ever recanted its claim that the missions were anything other than authentic.
David S. Percy’s book, DARK MOON : Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, presents the argument that their were indeed “whistle blowers” :
New copies of, DARK MOON : Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers are available from amazon uk for the princely sum of £290 !
Also available from aulis for £17
https://www.aulis.com/FORMgallery1.htm
I love how you didn’t even bother trying to make an argument, but simply resorted to a naked assertion fallacy and a book sales pitch.
Percy is a fraud, BTW. There are numerous videos debunking his corrupt nonsense. It’s pathetic that he has to INSINUATE that there were people trying to “leave clues” – but he can’t point to any ACTUAL PEOPLE straight up SAYING “I was part of a fraud”. And please don’t use the stupid “NASA would have murdered them” excuse. If they would have murdered their own employees for “exposing the truth”, why wouldn’t they just murder Percy, Kaising, Sibrel and other corrupt con men for doing the same?
Frank Speaker : … as well as the millions who witnessed it with their own eyes.
Rather than watching a TV show with the eyes of others …
Coronation Street – 8 million viewers a week …
https://tellymix.co.uk/ratings/358612-coronation-street-watched-soap-not-even-close-ratings.html
You’re saying that the Saturn V launches were faked in a studio? Must have been a really BIG studio, many miles high.
Frank Speaker :
“The Russians and Chinese were tracking all the missions, and their radio signals, and would have immediately seized upon the huge propaganda victory during the Cold War if they had got the slightest inkling that the American mission were not not successful, let alone not happening.”
The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/07/15/landings/
Russia calls investigation into whether US moon landings happened
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-calls-investigation-into-whether-us-moon-landings-happened-10327714.html
As a result of this NASA admission, Russian officials have started demanding an international investigation.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html
You didn’t provide a rebuttal to the claim tat the Russians were tracking the missions.
“Russia calls investigation into whether US moon landings happened”
This “call” was made by a political prostitute, not a scientist or engineer.
“As a result of this NASA admission, Russian officials have started demanding an international investigation.”
You failed to provide actual data cited by these Russian officials showing compelling evidence that the missions were faked. Note also that these officials drag their own country through the mud by implying that the Soviet space program was TOO STUPID to have picked up on the “fakery”.
That’s not a valid point really. Of the 400,000 people working on the program only about 50 would have any direct hands-on knowledge about the mission itself. Most of those 400,000 were contractors making components and parts.
Some guy working for Boeing on a design for the nose cone or whatever would have no idea what was happening at Mission Control or Cape Canaveral.
“Of the 400,000 people working on the program only about 50 would have any direct hands-on knowledge about the mission itself.”
Naked assertion fallacy.
“Most of those 400,000 were contractors making components and parts.”
You’re saying that none of these people would have known that their components and parts wouldn’t actually work in space and on the moon? Besides which, this is a Red Herring. These components and parts all had to be made in consultation with other engineers and technicians so that they would abide by the packaging requirements of the space-craft as a whole. Are you saying that there wasn’t constant communication between systems engineers and technicians regarding the technical requirements of the components so that they would accommodate the mission’s objectives and that they didn’t take into account things like weight, size, materials, vibration levels, thermal exposure, and torsional and mechanical stress? You’re saying that they were able to engineer and build the Saturn V and successfully get the stage separation to work, but that the rest of the systems weren’t capable of living up their tasks?
Look, everyone, at how FAKE this is:
Launching something that weighs as much as a warship into space, burning 15 tonnes of fuel per second, is obviously something that can be achieved by twiddling one’s thumbs, and NOT by the work of thousands of engineers and technicians.
Prof. Anthony Sutton was an academic who exposed cold war chicanery and shenanigans
between the superpowers. So the propaganda on all sides is just that, the round table agendas keep steamrolling over ALL nations.
I am dutch, and never consented to having to live in the US of Europe.
But this being USA occupied territory, woe is me & my fellow country-men and -women.
I’ve been looking in to the Apollo question for many years, and I am absolutely on the fence about what went down.
I don’t claim it was a hoax, but neither am I one of those who feels able to say the case is proved. The sad truth is the case is NOT proved, because every piece of evidence that would prove Apollo was genuine is either missing or never materialised.
So we are left with ambiguities and absence of certitude.
This clearly upsets many people, as witness the fury and rage expressed by a couple of posters here. They so want the proof to exist they simply keep asserting it does, as if repetition is enough.
There is no solid proof we ever went to the Moon. Nor is there solid proof we didn’t.
That has to be the starting point of any honest and serious debate.
The Russians and Chinese were tracking all the missions and their radio signals and they would have immediately seized upon a huge propaganda victory during the Cold War had they got the slightest inkling that they were not successful, let alone never occurred.
Dear Downvoters, prove otherwise.
They can’t, of course. They can only managed some passive-aggressive down-voting.
The fact that the US believed (until the soviets admitted otherwise) that the Soviets Zond 5 was a manned mission to orbit the moon due to interception of the transmissions of recorded speech from Zond 5 kinda puts a damper on any claims that tracking Apollo transmissions proves anything IMHO.
its also interesting that the Soviet manned moon missions only came to light after the collapse of the USSR .
This is a causal fallacy, a false dichotomy, an oversimplification and a huge assumption on your part.
We don’t know the specifics of what China/Russia knew or how they’d react. We don’t know what radio signals they successfully tracked, if any, what behind-the-scenes talks went on and whether it benefited them in any way to publicly ‘out’ the Americans. NASA deception COULD have been fully known by these countries! Maybe they let it play out so they could observe an interesting and free experiment in mass thought manipulation! Perhaps Russia baited America into faking the moon landings by creating a fake moon race and cynically exploited this?! Russia did, after all, send a tape recording of an astronaut’s voice around the moon in Zond 5, fooling everyone! It was later admitted as fake, yet it fooled people at the time including NASA, who soon afterwards announced it was postponing various test launches of equipment and going for broke to land on the moon asap. If Russia never intended to fool, perhaps it was a warning… If you don’t go to the moon soon WE WILL FAKE IT!? In any case, it’s clearly a very sound tactical move to bluff an enemy and goad it into overreaching itself! Perhaps that’s what Russia did!?
Also, knowledge of a huge state secret might be wasted by simply telling everyone about it immediately! Better to keep it in your hand as a bargaining chip, wouldn’t you say?
These are my ravings, simply to add balance to your pure speculation.
In all likelihood we’ll never be in a position to know the true global political landscape, what each country knew, what each country wanted to gain at the time and how they applied whatever leverage they had. Or didn’t have! It was doubtless unfathomably complicated and inscrutably shady even then, let alone now.
When it comes to knowledge and actions of state parties at that time, unless you can point to compelling evidence of which I’m unaware, we can’t know the specifics. If you’re pro-NASA, clearly you’d expecting to find zero evidence that Russia/China knew of any conspiracy but, do bear in mind, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
Sure, we can theorise, but it’s all massively uninformed conjecture. We shouldn’t construct oversimplified, black & white, either/or scenarios to lend support to one side or the other.
Surely it’s better to focus on some more conclusive support for NASA’s case, or indeed, stronger areas of doubt?
You are the one speculating, not me.
I’m simply stating facts as they were ascertained at the time and repeated since. It’s the doubters who are speculating and it’s for you lot to PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that these missions did not occur and that at the height of the Cold War the military might of the USSR and China didn’t know what was going on.
You are discussing nuances in potential probabilities of less than 1 in a trillion, you’ve got an awful long way to go, not me.
I guess I don’t see the moon landings as the foregone conclusion that you do. I actually think they’re pretty fantastical, once you start viewing them dispassionately. I don’t doubt that rockets work in space and that the Earth is round, or anything like that. I’m not trying to tear down the fabric of our universe here. The Apollo missions aren’t a universal axiom of truth, there is actually a lot of very compelling evidence to at least make one think twice about it all.
If, in fact, the moon landings are woven into the fabric of YOUR universe to this extent then I think you need to take a step back. Sticking your fingers in your ears and appealing to consensus to fight this particularly battle for you might provide you with a shock, as I’m not sure there’s as much consensus on this issue as you think, nowadays.
How is your brazenly closed-minded attitude benefitting anyone or furthering anything? If you can’t be arsed to debate this, Fine!, leave it to others who can, but don’t be obstructive! That’s anti-scientific and anti-progress.
I think we have quite enough bigoted people in the world, thanks. Why must you add to this irrational statistic?
It’s so depressing.
Still no actual evidence, just scenarios that you made up. And your claims about Zond 5 were patently ridiculous. Zond 5 was originally envisaged to carry a cosmonaut into lunar orbit (it ended up carrying a non-human biological cargo), but this was rejected because of the risk of it going wrong. It seems that the Soviets didn’t have nearly as much confidence in being able to fake it as you think. If they were afraid that they wouldn’t be able to ensure a cover up of a cosmonaut’s death, what makes you think they felt capable of faking something as elaborate as a moon landing? And, as it turns out, they DIDN’T fake a moon landing. Kind of strange if it’s “easy” to do such a thing and if they had the motivation.
Unlike you, I’m not that entrenched. I have doubts, and I’m happy to discuss them. However, I think you need to decide which one of my above hypotheticals you’re going to discussing and have some consistency, rather than combine them all into a random hodgepodge!
Zond 5 had a payload of seedlings, two tortoises (or turtles as nasa states ), fruit flies and some other things. All of which have significantly higher radioresistance than humans. The largest animal being the tortoise:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333967199_A_peptide_from_Testudo_horsfieldii_tortoise_spleen_as_a_potential_helper_for_reducing_acute_radiation_syndrome
Perhaps! Or perhaps they just didn’t think man would survive the intense solar radiation, as stated by M V Keldysh at the time:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8gYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
To my knowledge, the US is the only country ever to have sent a man past Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This was in a 4 year window between 1968-72 and NEVER AGAIN SINCE.
These missions were suspiciously flawless! Considering the number of critical stages to each of those missions (13 in each moon landing) and given NASA’s technological set backs leading up Apollo 11 (causing them to cancel stage D with subsequent lack of field testing) the fact that all crews came back completely intact must surely be ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely.
You say you are…
and the onus is on me to…
No, I don’t need to do that at all! And the common phrase is ‘reasonable doubt’. You can stuff the ‘any’ up your NASA-apologist jacksy!
Your reasoning is ‘I know we went to the moon, because we did’. Entirely circular. You argue from the same place as die-hard creationists. The moon shots were a pretty amazing and outlandish achievement and it behoves the person claiming this achievement to verify their claims with evidence. Or should we take every faith healer or illusionist at their word, simply by virtue of their having convinced a body of people? This is not scientific.
The dodgy moon footage ALONE establishes enough reasonable doubt to scrutinise the Apollo landings.
Despite your insistence that I provide you with science, the tortoise link above is the ONLY direct link to evidence EITHER of us has made. Where’s you backed-up, hard-and-fast science, sir?? Let’s have some links!
Stop making bare assertion fallacies and arguing by authority.
Lets remember, we’re talking about a troubled country here, who probably murdered its own president a few years prior, and who has been involved in non-stop misinformation, staged coups, false flags and imperialist wars ever since.
Faking Apollo would be innocent by comparison.
“To my knowledge, the US is the only country ever to have sent a man past Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This was in a 4 year window between 1968-72 and NEVER AGAIN SINCE.”
You’re saying that the Cold War context that motivated the US to initiate Apollo and devote enormous human, material and financial is irrelevant and that countries since then would have been unburdened by the enormous costs and resources involved because the US succeeded? And that they wouldn’t have needed a clear political reason to do it themselves? But hang on: that makes no sense.
“These missions were suspiciously flawless!”
Except they weren’t. NASA tried to give that impression, but we now know that the missions faced many difficulties, some of which came close to becoming show-stoppers for landing on the moon during those missions:
“How is it possible that everything went so smoothly?
IN A NUTSHELL: It didn’t. NASA went out of its way to give this impression, but the truth was quite different. Three astronauts died on the launch pad (Apollo 1). Apollo 13 suffered an explosion that scrubbed its lunar landing and almost killed the crew. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning at liftoff. Apollo 11 had a computer overload as it was landing on the Moon and lost control during rendezvous. Every mission had its significant malfunctions, equipment failures and close calls, and many crews were struck by nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, but all this wasn’t widely publicized.” https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/74-how-is-it-possible-that-everything.html
“Considering the number of critical stages to each of those missions (13 in each moon landing) and given NASA’s technological set backs leading up Apollo 11 (causing them to cancel stage D with subsequent lack of field testing) the fact that all crews came back completely intact must surely be ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely.”
Argument from incredulity combined with naked assertion fallacy. The fact that they all came back alive only shows that the engineers and technicians did a lot of things right and that they had devised effective procedures that worked in dealing with problems as they arose. This is part of the reason the program was so massively expensive and – you guessed it- hasn’t been done again.
What’s really astronomically unlikely is that NASA would fake Apollo 13 and its near-disaster, doing precisely something that put a massive dent in public enthusiasm for the program and causing the government to scale back the program by cancelling missions after Apollo 17.
“No, I don’t need to do that at all! And the common phrase is ‘reasonable doubt’. You can stuff the ‘any’ up your NASA-apologist jacksy!”
Conspiracy fundamentalists never feel the need to provide actual evidence, and they proudly yell about it like spoiled toddlers. Any sloppy reasoning, so long as it’s believed by enough of their ilk, will do, because then they can feel that they’re “backed” by a “community”. They become angry and hostile when confronted with logic, facts and science, of course, but having dug themselves into a whole, they have no choice but to denounce the naysayers with charges of “shill” and other cringe-inducing ad hominems, and thereby expand the scope of the “conspiracy”, only making it more unwieldy and unlikely.
“The moon shots were a pretty amazing and outlandish achievement and it behoves the person claiming this achievement to verify their claims with evidence.”
As has been done countless times in scientific journals- and rejected countless times by dogmato-lunatic deniers who are impervious to evidence presented in said scientific journals.
“Or should we take every faith healer or illusionist at their word, simply by virtue of their having convinced a body of people? This is not scientific.”
Straw-man fallacy. Again with the stupid supposition that it’s about “trust”, as though you can’t fact-check these things for yourself and as though the Soviets would have just “trusted” the Americans and somehow didn’t have their own scientific and engineering establishment. But trust is certainly the pillar of moon landing denial, as when clowns and frauds like Bart Sibrel are trusted by legions of hapless conspiracists who cling to his every word, hanging desperately from the scrotum of his “authority”.
“The dodgy moon footage ALONE establishes enough reasonable doubt to scrutinise the Apollo landings.”
Except that you repeatedly bleating the word “dodgy” doesn’t make it so. The Nazi tactic of repeating a lie a thousand times doesn’t make something true, whether the topic is politics or lunar science.
“Despite your insistence that I provide you with science, the tortoise link above is the ONLY direct link to evidence EITHER of us has made. Where’s you backed-up, hard-and-fast science, sir?? Let’s have some links!”
I provided you with an actual photo taken from the Apollo 11 missions showing the very disturbance you claim is not in evidence anywhere. I also provided multiple technical manuals and documents from NASA showing that far from “destroying” their technology and “losing” all their documentation, they have it freely available to view. What you do with evidence seems to be to simply ignore it and make excuses for your own lack of evidence of a “conspiracy”.
“Stop making bare assertion fallacies and arguing by authority.”
You first, clown.
“Faking Apollo would be innocent by comparison.”
In no way does that mean it would have been POSSIBLE to fake it. You’re essentially claiming that the Soviet KGB/GRU and entire scientific community would have either 1) been in on the conspiracy, even AFTER the collapse of the USSR, with not a single Soviet person ever coming forward to expose what they knew of the American “fakery” (a strange level of commitment to US prestige), or 2) that they were all too STUPID to know they were being tricked (even though they were ahead of the US for much of the Space Race), but that YouTube fake account trolls have “cracked” it.
“We don’t know the specifics of what China/Russia knew or how they’d react. We don’t know what radio signals they successfully tracked, if any, what behind-the-scenes talks went on and whether it benefited them in any way to publicly ‘out’ the Americans.”
Ah, so in other words you need to invoke evidence-lacking conspiracies in order to “validate” another evidence-lacking conspiracy. And you ignore what we DO know: that not a single Soviet or other non-US engineer, technician, intelligence official or other person actively involved in tracking the Apollo missions has EVER come forward to recant their claims of doing so.
“NASA deception COULD have been fully known by these countries! Maybe they let it play out so they could observe an interesting and free experiment in mass thought manipulation!”
“Maybe”; “maybe”; “maybe”. Yeah, let’s just go with “maybe” rather than what there’s actually evidence for. Good job building your “case”.
“Perhaps Russia baited America into faking the moon landings by creating a fake moon race and cynically exploited this?!”
Except that there’s absolutely no evidence for this- not from witness testimony; not from the Soviet archives; not from the historical record. There’s nothing to validate this “maybe” scenario that you literally just invented out of thin air. And you also bizarrely ignore that the Soviets LOST this moon race, and it was the US that came out on top in terms of prestige and accolades. The Soviets “cynically exploited” something by creating a moon race that made them look second tier?
“Russia did, after all, send a tape recording of an astronaut’s voice around the moon in Zond 5, fooling everyone!”
Zond 5 carried biological cargo around the moon and had originally been envisaged to carry a cosmonaut as well but this was called off because of the political fall-out if the cosmonaut died; I don’t know were you got this garbage about “faking a cosmonaut” and later ‘admitting that it was fake”. The Soviets NEVER claimed that a cosmonaut was on board. So, in fact, the Zond 5 mission proves the opposite of what you claim. The only fakery here is your claim.
If you can’t even get the bare basics right, and you have to resort to outright lying to get your message across, then what’s the point? Are you guys really this desperate?
This is cherry-picking and quote-mining and very dishonest! You obviously read the post above, so you’re obviously aware of the point I was making.
I indulged in speculation, to make a point.
It was clearly rhetorical, and you know this. I then made the point that you just tried to pass off as your own, but rather more elegantly:
This is so dishonest of you.
More blathering by you because you can’t produce any evidence or logic to support your case. And yet I’m the “dishonest” one. It must suck to know that no scientist will ever come around to your point of view, and that you are perpetually stuck in the limbo of appealing to YouTube fake account trolls and corrupt taxi drivers.
Slightly off-topic: do you appreciate Neil Degrasse-Tyson and his schtick as honest & sincere, or as an act/just some narratives?
Gardenfiend,
Have you not realised yet that this ‘Fight Nonsense’ is a TROLL?
Please stop feeding it.
“because every piece of evidence that would prove Apollo was genuine is either missing or never materialised.”
This is itself an evidence-lacking naked assertion other than the endless repetition of moon landing deniers. But maybe you could specify what would qualify as evidence to prove that Apollo was genuine, and then show how it’s “missing”.
Try these sources to clear up your confusions and misgivings:
Why it would have been logistically impossible to fake the moon landings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXb4Wu5_kv4
Third-party (non-US) evidence that the Apollo missions were authentic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
No need to “trust” the US government the standard caricature of moon landing deniers, who set up a false dichotomy between blindly believing the US government on the one hand, and blanket dismissal of anything claimed by the US government on the other. of course, a their way exists: fact-checking). We can just consult what the scientific establishments of what other countries think, and their reasons for doing so.
“So we are left with ambiguities and absence of certitude.” Sure, if you don’t actually fact-check.
“They so want the proof to exist they simply keep asserting it does, as if repetition is enough.”
This is in reality a perfect description of moon landing deniers, who have nothing other than memes, logical fallacies, and outright lies and falsehoods to “prove” that the missions didn’t happen. Significantly, you haven’t actually addressed a single thing I’ve said, which I guess does have the benefit of allowing you to pretend that I rely on “repetition”. If I repeat myself, it’s because people like you refuse to engage the actual arguments and evidence and so I need to reiterate my points until someone does address them. Ironically, I’ve addressed many claims that are repeated ad nauseum by moon landing deniers and that really do rely purely on repetition.
“There is no solid proof we ever went to the Moon.” This is according to no actual scientist or engineer. This should worry you.
“That has to be the starting point of any honest and serious debate.” Not even remotely, actually. The starting point needs to be honesty and fact-checking – nothing more. Moon landing denial isn’t entitled to any sort of claim to credibility simply by virtue of its claim to being “the other side of the story”. Just because there are two stories doesn’t mean that they’re “equally valid”.
Why is so much nonsense posted about this? It’s abundantly clear that NASA went to where the moon was expected to be but the moon wasn’t there, just an old stage set got up to look like it. Someone had stolen the real thing, perhaps millennia ago. As might be expected, what with all the suspicions of bluff and double-bluff the Cold War had engendered, this discovery set off a train of speculation and counterclaim that is still with us half a century later.
If they had taken a decent telescope to the Moon instead of that utterly pointless, gimicky (and implausible) Moon buggy, they would
a) have had unparalleled images of deep space, better than anything available through Hubble to this day
b) have had solid, irrefutable proof that Apollo went to the Moon.
Sadly, they never, once, in six missions, thought to do this. They never even bothered to take pictures of the night sky from the Moon’s surface.
Before you write fifteen paras of abuse about this, – yes, I know the aperture speed explains the lack of stars in the sky in the images of Aldrin etc , but it doesn’t explain why they never thought to point the camera at the sky and adjust the speed to take star pics – or why the never took a good telescope.
This is one of the major lacunae that worries me. The one certain thing they could not fake and would offer absolute proof they went to the Moon – and it’s just not there.
“If they had taken a decent telescope to the Moon instead of that utterly pointless, gimicky (and implausible) Moon buggy, they would”
The “gimmicky” “moon buggy” allowed the astronauts to traverse many miles of the moon’s surface and to collect a larger variety of samples. Saying that it was gimmicky makes about as much sense as saying that astronauts on Mars having a wheeled transport is “gimmicky”. Note that at no point did you provide any sources or facts to hint that the lunar roving vehicle was “implausible”.
“a) have had unparalleled images of deep space, better than anything available through Hubble to this day”
Pure naked assertions, backed by not a shred of science. You don’t even demonstrate that the images would have been betetr than the largest Earth-based telescopes at the time.
“b) have had solid, irrefutable proof that Apollo went to the Moon.”
Thanks for admitting that Apollo went to the moon, given that Apollo 16 DID install a telescope on the surface of the moon: The Far-Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph.
“Sadly, they never, once, in six missions, thought to do this.”
Argument by naked assertion combined with argument from ignorance.
“They never even bothered to take pictures of the night sky from the Moon’s surface.”
Same. See above.
Compare the near total silence about the magnificent starscape from all the Apollo astronauts to the awe filled descriptions from ISS astronauts from the daylight side of earth orbit .
But even so, denying the moon landings is very much not anti-semitic because
of paperclip / the nazis involved in the program.
They should get off of their high horse and admit having raced a hobby-horse
to nowhere at great public expense. Should.
Moon landings FACT-CHECK:
Russian space geeks seek to fund satellite to scan for lunar mission trace
Published time: 25 Jul, 2019 21:45 Edited time: 25 Jul, 2019 21:46
Russian space geeks seek to fund satellite to scan for lunar mission trace
Were the American lunar landings real or a hoax? A group of Russian enthusiasts are taking the question seriously, seeking sponsors to send a microsatellite to the Moon – to dispel or confirm the longstanding conspiracy theory.
“We deliberately chose targets on the Moon that arouse the greatest public interest,” Vitaly Egorov, the project’s founder, said, explaining why his team decided to search for traces of the Apollo missions on the Earth’s satellite.
“We want to recoup the development and launch of the satellite with private donations and advertising contracts – without any government funding.”
However, Egorov admitted that he still hoped for cooperation with Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, the Academy of Sciences and major universities “to reduce the cost of the project and increase its scientific and educational value.”
Microsatellites are the future of space exploration due to their being cheaper and easier to launch than larger craft, Nikita Partsevsky, the project’s technical supervisor, said during its presentation in Moscow.
“We hope that our project will create a demand for such devices in Russia. After testing on the Moon, we can build then to the study of Mars, Venus or some asteroids. They can also be used to monitor the Earth for both state and commercial purposes,” he explained.
What a garbage waste of money. These “space geeks” also spit in the face of their own country’s space legacy and the competence of its space agency. They’re essentially saying that the Soviet space agency and its engineers, technicians, analysts and scientists were TOO STUPID to be able see through the American “hoax”. Ugh, pathetic.
Who are you?
You are either some desperate Moon-landing-buff covering your own growing doubts by spamming this thread with hatred for anyone with questions about the nature of the Apollo missions.
Or you’re one of the thousands of paid or hired NASA ‘fact-checkers’ whose brief it is to ‘correct’ any ‘misinformation’ about the Apollo missions.
Either way, why are you so long on abuse and so short on basic info?
I’m not a Moon-hoax type but I can see you’re basically winging it here with minimal data and a lot of bare-faced assertions you simply hope no one has enough knowledge to call you on.
Are you up for any kind of real discussion?
For some things in life there is simply no discussion; man went to the moon.
Mm-hmm. And Jesus is God.
Mm-hmm. And corrupt taxi-drivers who make “documentaries” and wave Bibles in people’s faces while expecting to be taken seriously have more valid things to say about aerospace engineering than actual aerospace engineers. let’s defer to corrupt taxi-drivers from now on for our science and engineering knowledge, everyone.
Exactly FN. Some people are deluded, or delibrately contrarian just for the sake or amusement of it. They think they are being intellectual, but it’s the laziest form of intellectualism possible to simply accept the “evidence” of some clickbait YouTube video.
For some things in life there is simply no discussion; man didn’t go to the moon, and Jesus is god. There you are Frank: two more unprovable statements of religious certainty – with no more actual-reality-based assurance behind them than yours has.
You woke up this morning, at some point went online and posted your reply; it happened, it is real, it’s not a figment of our imagination,nor a conspiracy that you did this.
Similarly, 400,000 people woke up each morning for 10+ years, went to work, delivered the moon landings; it happened, it is real, it’s not a figment of our imagination, nor a conspiracy that they did this.
For 911 i agree that the official story is unreal, and the reason is that REAL firefighters and other witnesses ON SITE that day saw something different. So that’s COMPLETELY different to the lunar landings.
So the hundreds of international geologists who have studied the lunar rocks for decades don’t actually know what they’re talking about? INTERESTING.
Guys, this is all “fake”, according to the fake account science “genius” Rhisiart: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/
But it’s NOT fake according to ACTUAL GEOLOGISTS, planetary scientists, chemists and physicists.
That seems to be a common juxtaposition when it comes to the Apollo missions. While science “geniuses” like Rhisiart bleat about there being “no evidence” for Apollo’s authenticity, scientists all over the world calmly continue to accumulate knowledge of the universe by using material brought back from Apollo.
Hi MLS,
thank you for your emotion-laden and fact-free response. I look forward to you actually addressing a single thing I’ve said. Until then, your posts should be considered quite worthless.
“I’m not a Moon-hoax type but I can see you’re basically winging it here with minimal data and a lot of bare-faced assertions you simply hope no one has enough knowledge to call you on.”
I look forward to someone actually rising to the challenge. Will you? Or will you simply continue to rely on naked assertions such as “there is no evidence proving the Apollo missions.”
“You are either some desperate Moon-landing-buff covering your own growing doubts by spamming this thread with hatred for anyone with questions about the nature of the Apollo missions.”
Unlike sunken-costs moon landing deniers, I have no “growing doubts”. Quite the contrary, actually: my conviction that the Apollo missions were authentic has only been STRENGTHENED by the charlatanry and dishonesty in this comment section. I’m afraid that the shot-gun method to truth – firing off a thousand lies in the hope that one of them will hit its target – doesn’t suffice for building a coherent, scientifically tenable case.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m happy to talk about any claims that you feel are compelling and suggest that the Apollo missions might not have happened. It’s just that whenever someone has ventured in that direction, they’ve ended up emoting in the end because their claims have been shown to be empty and baseless.
I wouldn’t bother . All Apollo fanbois who haunt the comment threads of anything related to NASA use abuse and ad hominem to derail discussions about the NASA/CIA/DoD Apollo fraud.
NASbArats I call ’em due to the similar MO used by paid apologists for the Apartheid state.
JW does a great job of exposing Phil Webb as the charlatan he is, along with his NASbArat associates like Jay ‘Windbag’ Windley .
Dave Mc Gowan also does a good job on exposing ’em in wagging the moondoggie. 🙂
I very much doubt man went to the moon at all. The footage looks very suspect, as is the fact we have not been ‘back’ in 45 years despite experience allegedly gained and the huge advances in computer technology which should make the whole mission much easier. The anniversary tributes are merely propaganda, frantically peddled by an increasingly discredited American state terrified of the consequences of being caught out in this huge lie.
“I very much doubt man went to the moon at all. The footage looks very suspect,”
Tell us how it “should” look, “space expert” who gets his science from Hollywood films and children’s coloring books”.
“as is the fact we have not been ‘back’ in 45 years despite experience allegedly gained and the huge advances in computer technology which should make the whole mission much easier.”
Wait, so you’re saying that the technology to “fake” it has devolved in the 45 years since it was “faked”, and that’s why no one has “faced” it again?
“The anniversary tributes are merely propaganda, frantically peddled by an increasingly discredited American state terrified of the consequences of being caught out in this huge lie.”
Prove it, imbecile.
If – big if – the moon landings were faked in 1969-72 it would indeed be next to impossible to repeat that fakery today. Too many watching eyes. Too many ways of homing in on signal sources, too much easily available software for analysing audio and visual data. It’d be a fool’s errand to try and put any such hoax across today.
Pro tip – try replying without resorting to abuse.
The Russians and Chinese were monitoring all the radio telemetry, even radio amateurs were doing it. You have zero clue, but trying to come across as some wise guy.
“If – big if – the moon landings were faked in 1969-72 it would indeed be next to impossible to repeat that fakery today. Too many watching eyes.”
You’re saying that the KGB and GRU didn’t exist, and that they didn’t have allied intelligence agencies who were also monitoring US government activities at the time, including for the purposes of industrial espionage? You’re saying that engineers, scientists and technicians of the time wee all so stupid that they wouldn’t be able to put two and two together to realize they were being duped? You’re saying that the countless engineers and specialists working on Apollo, who were in constant consultation with other engineers and specialists to develop the systems and components into a working common package, were not doing any real problem solving and that they might have been “tricked” in their hundreds of thousands by a handful of “knowing insiders”? You’re saying that countless scientists around the world weren’t watching events closely as they unfolded and that they weren’t involved in analyzing and verifying the findings of the Apollo missions? You’re saying that geologists to this very day aren’t analyzing the rocks brought by by Apollo, and that they’re so ignorant of what they’re doing that they would be fooled by fake moon rocks?
“Too many ways of homing in on signal sources,”
Already readily available in the late 60 and early 70s. The Doppler effect, among other things, was well known at the time.
“too much easily available software for analysing audio and visual data.”
Are you saying that this software can’t be used to analyze audio and visual data from the Apollo missions to definitively show whether the Apollo missions were genuine? Note how you just contradicted yourself: on the one hand, you’re saying that the software today is too powerful for someone to fake a moon landing today, but on the other hand, you’re saying it’s not powerful enough to check the moon landing that is purported to have happened. Which one is it?
“It’d be a fool’s errand to try and put any such hoax across today.”
Or indeed, back then, given the political consequences of exposure of the conspiracy by the Eastern Bloc, the logistical difficulties of managing a conspiracy on that scale, and the fact that you could just try for a real moon shot and not have to worry about the outcome of getting exposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
““I very much doubt man went to the moon at all. The footage looks very suspect,””
“Tell us how it “should” look, “space expert…”
Very unsuspect.
“““I very much doubt man went to the moon at all. The footage looks very suspect,””
“Tell us how it “should” look, “space expert…”
“Very unsuspect.”
Interesting take, especially from the intellectual kinsman of someone who still hasn’t answered my question and instead consciously chooses to hide from it. I’m sure he’ll have the might of science behind him once he steps up to the task. Won’t he?
I have a conspiracy theory too – that such completely irrational conspiracy theories which fly in the face of established facts and posit that we never went to the moon, that the Earth is flat, etc, are a very deliberate and psychops campaign to get the population believing any old rubbish. The intention being to disconnect people from established facts and truth, and to become a highly malleable and controlled society which will accept any fiction which it is fed, happily, uncritically, unwaveringly. Welcome to 1984.
If I was the government, I would certainly far prefer that people be fighting over the moon landings than discussing immediately urgent matters of politics. Moon landing denial may well be a CIA psy-op. It might also be one with the purpose not to dumb people down in and of itself, but to study people being dumbed-down and how susceptible they become to nonsensical and scientifically untenable claims.
Life is short; spend as much time as you can arguing with strangers on the Internet.
A suggestion for a small practical joke, to be played on ‘Fight nonsense’: First, post a couple of currently inflammatory tropes – inflammatory, that is to fuming, ad-hom-spraying guardians of current orthodoxy (who get so inflamed when anyone has the effrontery to use basic freedom of speech to challenge – or at least to discuss sceptically – one of their current “absolutely settled, unquestionable, sacred scientific ‘truths'”).
I suggest as one piece of bait: the tidal wave of disquieting evidence that current vaccinations protocols are obviously not safe, and more about Big Pharma gangsters making vast profits than about lessening human sickness, suffering and death. (Note, like most vaccine sceptics, I’m not saying here that all vaccination is inherently bad; sometimes it’s useful; Dr. Andrew Wakefield, amongst many others campaigning for socially- and ecologically-responsible vaccination protocols, is quite clear about that.)
The other bit of red-rag bait might be the – quite obvious – anomalies about the place and time of Osama bin Laden’s death, since the Abbottabad melodrama pretty clearly doesn’t stand up to cold-eyed scrutiny, nor does it survive the eye-witness reports; nor the copious evidence that OBL actually died around the turn of 2001/02.
Moreover, as an added touch of comedy, I propose to play this joke on Fn as a ‘lay-down misere’: announcing it openly here, and then waiting to see whether s/he will still bite! 🙂
Over to you ‘nonsense’! :O)
Rise 1! LOLOLOL! More, nonsense: Go on, again! :O)
Come on nonsense! Do some more foaming ad-homs. They’re such a hoot! More LOLz! More! Get that old spittle-flecking spray going! :O)
Meanwhile – to improve the hilariously-shining hour – here’s some more Dmitry Orlov, just published, with some very specific information on how the Moon-hoax scam was done (Dmitry seems well-armed with lots of dissident Russian facts, and in little doubt that the landings were faked):
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2019/07/how-to-fake-mission.html
[You’ll just get a tantalising taster at the link. To read the whole – broadside – piece, you’ll have to subscribe to Dmitry’s Subscribestar account, as I do. Worth every penny! :)]
Pathetic fake news website. Orlov is another clown peddling the same tired, dreary nonsense to people like you. But I could be wrong. Did you have a specific claim by Orlov that you wanted to discuss, or did you just want to signal that you enjoy being fleeced by liars and con men?
Nonsense is all over this thread but no comment to my Jarrah White link. Funny that.
For systematic debunkings of White’s videos, see here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdINUnNfanbUdsjdbi-ltbOOanMY9xtJa
Do better please. JW has made some very good points regarding the Van Allen belts and much else, which still awaits serious refutation.
He’s done nothing remotely of the sort. All his claims are bunk and he makes endless sophomoric errors. P.S. no actual scientists or engineers agree with him. That should worry you. But maybe it won’t, given that you’re entirely too comfortable with getting your science from corrupt taxi-drivers who weirdly wave Bibles in people’s faces and still expect to be taken seriously.
Which specific claims would you like to discuss, though? I’d be happy to do so. Don’t just hide behind “This guy is a honest and he makes good videos. I promise.”
“which still awaits serious refutation.” None of Jarrah’s claims are serious to begin with, because they get everything basically wrong and rely on endless logical fallacies. If you don’t agree, we can delve into them. If you prefer to argue by proclamation, then you be you, I guess.
Wow…FN.. either that guy is like 90 yo with nothing else to do than replying everyone…..or he’s getting paid to do it..Sheesh….
…there are other possibilities but they seem less likely with each new reply….oh Lord!..
How come you haven’t refuted a single thing I’ve said? Why do you guys insist on being the intellectual equivalents of pederasts ?
Oh, FN, we hail you!
You are right,
You’ve been right and
You’ll always be!
Oh, FN, we salute You!
We, the miserables, pay homage
to your all encompassing knowledge.
Everything that was: You know!
Everything that is: You know,
And everything that will ever be.
Miserere, FN,
Miserere nobis!
Do better, please.
I’ll try, Oh, Lord!
I’ll try…..😖
I should hope so. Your efforts so far have relied too much on the views of corrupt taxi-drivers and not on actual verified science.
“Pederasts” is an interesting expression: where did you come by that Flight nonsense ?
From your demeanor and lack of commitment to reality.
Are you ‘Homophobic’ or just plain out of control angry,
generally speaking ?
Your anger has certainly not done science any favours ! NASA also not …
Take a long hard objective look below and checkout how the repeated rush of blood to your brain, (from others’ comments), & consider how that ‘rush’ detracts from anything scientific & constructive, you may have to say >>> take some oxygen, then try again . . . and answer me this:-
Do you understand what S.T.E.V.E. does ?
If you are unsure of the acronym, check NASA, who invented it.
I’m so glad that I haven’t even read the article, yet … because there are seriously more important issues to discuss in my book of priorities, than spending as much time as you can arguing with strangers on the Internet,
ironically as “STEVE” dictates, repeatedly:-
Strong Thermal Emissions Velocity Enhancement : S>T>E>V>E
Less of the anger more of the science, please …
Why would you allude to homosexuality unless you you equate pederasty with it? I didn’t say that you masturbate in front of boys; I said that you’re the intellectual equivalent of someone who masturbates in front of CHILDREN. And yet you ask “Are you homophobic?” The hypocrisy is disgusting and inhuman.
I noticed that you haven’t addressed any points I’ve raised. You’re too busy engaging in the logical fallacy known as “poisoning the well”.
I notice that you haven’t addressed the Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement matter, yet … no surprises there 🙂
By the way it was YOU that alluded to pederasts, you firkin’ imbecile, not me …
There is no “matter” to address because you haven’t spelled out an ARGUMENT specifying what you’re actually saying here. Bashing words together on your keyboard and then laying down a gauntlet doesn’t add up to an argument. Try again, this time without the delinquent juvenile deceit, evasion, sexism (“women drivers”) and blue blood entitlement (“do you have any idea who my FATHER is?” By the way, I’d like to hear from him. Could you post me a link to his work?).
“I notice that you haven’t addressed the Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement matter”
Care to elaborate on what you’re even mumbling about here and why it poses the least bit of difficulty for the veracity of Apollo? Otherwise it can’t be “addressed”.
FYI, the word pederast is of Greek origins, however, in the Cyrillic culture today, it is widely employed daily to describe a homosexual. Even road raged women drivers, with a temperament like yours, employ this term, which helps to demonstrate that YOU don’t have a clue what yer’ talking about …
Greek paiderastēs, literally, lover of boys, from paid- ped- + erastēs lover, from erasthai to love …
In the early 70’s my godfather was working for NASA on Laser Technology. He also went on to become chief scientific advisor for the M.o.D. 1993-1999. His surrogate father from WW2 onwards, was my grandfather, from whom I also learnt about physics, micro-radio-waves, energy, frequency & vibrations & the Van Allen belts. Grandfather was instrumental in many innovative areas of M.o.D designs for Radio & Radar installations, even before WW2 and before the propaganda machines began, like the BBC. I focussed more on the corporate side of Tech. at my grandfather’s behest, including studying Bernard Eastlund’s HAARP designs for phasing antennas & modulation & focussing of same, to engineer weather and search for oil & gas fields …
it has become clear to me, that you CHILD FLIGHT NONSENSE, are completely clueless and are trolling, pure & simple.
Thanks for the confirmation: if you’d known anything about NASA & Science & STEVE, you’d have picked upon my deliberate mistake immediately, which in fact ‘Robbo’ has done !
You latent pederast :), you are the one who has been “poisoning the well” of knowledge and the fact that you are also CLUELESS about the 11th September 2001, should satisfy most others, as to the nature of your online games of deceit & shilling. If you’d focussed on the science, as I suggested, we’d have had much more than strong thermal emission velocity enhancement from you & me, by now and you would have sounded more credible in some form or another.
Swivel on it !
“In the early 70’s my godfather was working for NASA on Laser Technology. He also went on to become chief scientific advisor for the M.o.D. 1993-1999. His surrogate father from WW2 onwards, was my grandfather, from whom I also learnt about physics, micro-radio-waves, energy, frequency & vibrations & the Van Allen belts. Grandfather was instrumental in many innovative areas of M.o.D designs for Radio & Radar installations, even before WW2 and before the propaganda machines began, like the BBC. I focussed more on the corporate side of Tech. at my grandfather’s behest, including studying Bernard Eastlund’s HAARP designs for phasing antennas & modulation & focussing of same, to engineer weather and search for oil & gas fields …”
I think you might have invented a new type of logical fallacy: the “my relatives were such-and-such, therefore I know about such-and-such” fallacy. And yet your ARGUMENTS don’t hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny. At least, not according any actual scientists or engineers.
“You latent pederast :), you are the one who has been “poisoning the well” of knowledge and the fact that you are also CLUELESS about the 11th September 2001, should satisfy most others, as to the nature of your online games of deceit & shilling.”
I love how you went from “my grandfather worked for NASA, therefore I know more than NASA” to “address 9/11, government shill!” And you’re STILL holding an empty bag 🙂
Not empty, coz’ I have clearly sussed another scientific moron who is also illiterate, coz’ it clearly states my godfather was working for NASA on Laser Tech. not my grandfather, if you had only read & digested that which you copy pasted, (you wanker, check your text & your brain oxygen capacity, as instructed) and you therefore are very clearly just another troll I bagged up & cornered and from now on, I & some others know conclusively not to waste time on you…
Clouds & silver linings: you bellend.
What you think from now on, is of ground zero, typical Terra Firma importance… a negative discharge, just to earth & bury & move on,
over your grave 🙂
DR DADE rules, 🙂
Don’t Read Don’t Answer Don’t Engage,
with S>T>E>V>E @Flight Nonsense
You will henceforth be completely ignored,
as virtual scum. Enjoy your life trolling & Tschuss…
over & out 😉
Let the record show: Tim thinks that “My godfather worked of NASA” is some sort of argument. I guess that’s why this miserable little troll still can’t cough up an actual argument.
Edit: “at NASA”, not “of NASA”. Wouldn’t want Tim to concern troll over grammar.
“Do you understand what S.T.E.V.E. does ?
If you are unsure of the acronym, check NASA, who invented it.”
The acronym S.T.E.V.E. waa invented by a Canadian amateur aurora watcher and arrived at NASA via a circuitous route through more academically inclined early adopters. (As a childhood aurora and weather watcher, I still take some vague nostalgic interest in the meanaderings of that long-abandoned pursuit and its adherents).
Are you a legal adviser to the Vatican Kiddie Club?
I have an in-law who was a senior lawyer involved in disentangling the Banco Ambrosiano / Robert Calvi fallout. As he never spoke about his work, I found out only this year, as an incidental and personally interesting but otherwise irrelevant piece of information that was, nevertheless, a direct result of checking out some basic/documented/irrefutable facts relating to an O-G article. Just as in most financial structures, old money trumps new money, so, in general matters, basic facts have it over waffly suppositions (and simple assertion, pseudo-logic, compulsive-obsession, etc). Try it sometime. If you’re lucky it could lead you to some personally interesting but otherwise irrelevant facts about the circumstances surrounding your conception or ultimate demise or whatever.
Lol, I know yer’ right, I was just trying to wind him up with more nonsense & see what he knew, given the way that this comments thread has degenerated into the average ad hom. online slanging match, for which he’s directly responsible …
Long live the purple streaker, STEVE … who affects CLIMATE 😉
A hot gas cloud travelling @13,420 mph and 3,000ºC hotter than surrounding air temperatures, a mere 186 miles above us …
********************************
Funny you should mention Roberto Calvi,I was in Blackfriars, early that morning, with an envelope of press cuttings for ‘that’ bank: fascinating case. My ex-father-in-law worked for Bank Leu for 42 years, finishing as Chief of Investments & Securities: he wanted his pension paid out in full, (not monthly payments): he advised them 3 years in advance, aged 62, then they pretended not to have received his recorded delivery declaration and put him in early retirement, saying he had not advised the Bank of his wishes, within the mandatory 2 year period of notice. So, he commenced legal proceedings, then during the mopping up phase, before Credit Suisse bought the Bank Leu, he came home from work, saying he’d drank a foul cup of coffee, during a meeting: (like myself, Fritz was a coffee addict) any ways, he got a very sudden attack of Leukemia and ended up looking like Litvinenko and 4 months later, he was dead: he never got to go to court, let alone enjoy any of his pension.
Of course, his knowledge of Vatican dealings and African & other Dictators accounts was exceptional and though he never spoke specifics, we would use a kind of code for inference & suggestions relating to current events, when walking the his dog … it would have been fascinating listening to him in retirement, because he’d only just begun to connect the dots on the global power games in play, (partly due to my work at B.P.). He was that old school kinda’ head down reliable perfectionist type of banker, who had become uneasy & disturbed by the changes in banking culture, thus he wanted his pension paid in full, as he’d lost faith & Trust in their actions, after 42 years …
“Pederasts” is an interesting expression: where did you come by that Flight nonsense ?
In the choir?
FN, there are many scientists + engineers who question the authenticity of the moon landings , a quick search should assist you .
As to the other assertions that you make, in between your ad hom and namecalling, here’s a link which just about covers everything-
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Wagging_the_Moondoggie#250_miles_max_distance_travelled_from_Earth_in_nearly_50_years
Don’t expect a reply from me, I’ve fed enough NASbArat trolls in my time. I’ve heard all your ilks debunked arguments ad nauseum.
It is undeniable that the “moon landing” was faked. This has been proven conclusively by all the scientists. The debate is over. The science is settled. There’s no point arguing any more with faked moon landing deniers. They are just conspiracy theorists.
Likewise vaccinations should be avoided at all costs. Anyone who is vaccinated invariably contracts Mad Cow Disease and becomes a gibbering idiot conspiracy theorist, who believes that the moon landing actually occurred, that Bin Laden was killed by Seal Team 6, and that there are no aliens at Area 51. Sadly, there are a lot of these people.
The best analysis, I have seen of the “moon landings”, and incidentally of 9/11, (within 24hrs) and many other related matters was by the sadly deceased Dave McGowan. I do not expect anyone, to change their mind, as a result of his work, because hardly anyone changes their mind, if others’ analyses conflicts with their long held beliefs, and I believed the moon landings were real for over 30 years. I am now 100% convinced that the photography was faked. However that does not prove that the moon landings were faked. It just makes it far more probable. I personally think they achieved, almost all of the project, except the parts that were at the time physically impossible. I also think the project was extremely worthwhile in terms of rapid technological, cultural and motivational development. It was a great time to be young. Just look at what we can do. It’s a pity it all went wrong.
The one classic video which cannot be explained, due to the time delay between communications between the the earth, and moon is the take-off from the moon’s surface. In order to make the slight adjustments to the camera seen here, requires near instant feedback to make adjustments. Otherwise the risk of losing the entire sequence is overwhelming. See the zoom out, and the pan up. Impossible to control from earth as it takes approximately 3 seconds, to see the result of any adjustment. I think it highly unlikely they left a cameraman on the moon, so this had to have been faked on earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
Tony
Mr McGowan is much missed. I particularly liked this essay on the “Tattoo Theorists” i.e. the ones who are vehemently opposed to those skeptical of a plane hitting the Pentagon:
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/september11-act-ii-addendum-ii/
This is much on my mind at present since, thanks to Flaxgirl, I have been watching this film skeptical of planes hitting the Twin Towers:
Never a truer word has been spoken, people have usually made up their minds before the first word has ever been spoken. Something i think most of us are probably guilty of .
One of the best quotes I have read is this one from Frank Zappa:
“One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people’s minds.”
I read Wagging the Moondoggie and found it very compelling and I really loved the name. Isn’t it wonderful? However, although I found it compelling I went ahead and did my own research and I got stuck at the hours and hours of audio between Houston and the astronauts. I couldn’t see how on earth (or on the moon :)) it could be faked. Astronauts are not actors and I simply cannot see them trying to fake this audio or how it could be produced any other way. And why would they make them do all this audio six times. That’s just ridiculous. I also cannot see how you can fake the sunlight reflected on the moon with a black sky. If only someone would actually fake the moon landings or even aspects of them … with the technology available at the time … then I could believe it but no one has remotely tried to fake anything with any conviction. And even with today’s technology First Man does not convincingly replicate the moon – of course, you might suggest as my sister does that the lack of attempt to replicate the moon landings is deliberate. She would.
Also, no one has actually come up with clear evidence that astronauts couldn’t have gone to the moon. That the Saturn V couldn’t have made it, that the trajectory wouldn’t have worked, that the conditions were impossible. No one has come up with anything that really clearly shows it couldn’t have been done. And so, if it could have been done, why wouldn’t they have done it? There are so many different angles to look at the achievement which favour “real”.
Agree with ‘Flight nonsense’ regarding hoax moon landings. 9/11 is something else. The evidence after months of wading through massive nonsense, like space beams, holographic aircraft and more lately no deaths, is overwhelming that the 3 skyscrapers that fell, (with only two aircraft hits), did so due to controlled demolition. As this is off topic it’ll have to be left there.
You need to shift the waters in which you wade, ChrisG. One extremely effective propaganda technique is pushing out loads of theories many of which are ludicrous. Thus, when people start looking and come across the ludicrous theories they tend to think, “Oh, what a bunch of conspiracy theorist nonsense” and turn away.
My website provides a succinct, comprehensive explanation of 9/11
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/911.html
The basic points are this:
9/11 was a Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation in the form of a massive Full-Scale Exercise involving multiple drills. The only major realities on the day were the destructions of three buildings at the WTC by controlled demolition and damage to all other buildings at the WTC (caused by various methods) and damage to the West Wing of the Pentagon. There were no hijackings, no plane crashes and death and injury were staged.
This may sound utterly incredible but there is ample evidence to support this multi-faceted hypothesis and zero evidence to support any competing hypotheses.
The most significant propaganda strategy was the propaganda campaign directed to the truthers, those who recognise controlled demolition and (less often) no plane crashes. The purpose of this propaganda campaign was to hide the key lie of death and injury by mixing it with the truth of controlled demolition. Truth mixed with lies – what an incredibly effective propaganda technique.
While the truthers believe in the lie of real death and injury they are stymied in getting out the truth because people will find it impossible to believe that the US government would callously kill those people in the buildings … and people are correct in their non-acceptance! The US government would never kill their citizens in that way. Even if they send their soldiers off to self-generated war to be killed – it would never be their MO to kill their citizens like that. It must be remembered that 9/11 was a Psychological Operation above all else. Psychological. In a psyop they only do things for real they want for real and fake the rest.
I prove my case because I’ve provided 10 points favouring the various component hypotheses referred to above over the equivalent “official story” hypotheses and offered $5,000 to anyone who can come up with equivalent exercises with favouring of hypotheses reversed and no one has been able to respond … nor even come up with a single point let alone 10.
It’s extremely ironic that it is only since I woke up to the 9/11 death and injury lie that I’ve had a lot of hostility directed at me in the comments here. Aren’t people strange? It’s considered perfectly OK to say, “The US government brought those buildings down by controlled demolition and coldbloodedly killed those poor 3,000 people and injured 6,000 others,” but it’s taboo and really, really not OK to say, “The US government brought those buildings down by controlled demolition and faked death and injury of 9,000 people.” That is beyond the pale, an outrage and an insult to the loved ones of the 3,000 dead people not to mention an insult to the poor people who died. Well, sure it might be if it had really happened but …
Actually, they faked injury to only a pretty small number of people – they just told us the number of people was 6,000.
So sorry, ChrisG, I didn’t read your post properly – I now see you agree that it was controlled demolition but think there’s lots of other nonsense including “no deaths”. The rest of what you say I agree is nonsense but not “no deaths”.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html
Like a dog lifting its leg to mark it’s territory, we landed on the Moon, we peed on it, and we left.
Actually, to save weight, poop and pee was indeed left on the moon, so you’re not wrong.
I have not heard of the author before – who he? Anyway he seems to be trying to re-write history.
A QUICK BACKGROUND
When JFK was elected in a surprise win against Nixon, the wheels started coming off the captured US State department and the cfr controllers refused to bow down to the critical thinking of the new Administration.
When that thinking showed there was no ‘winning’ a nuclear war, they developed the MAD concept to explain it. The Russians were on board and Kruschev/Kennedy people decided on a proxy to see which of the models of human organisation was better for the majority of people communist or capitalist – not by continued building and deploying of Nukes – but deciding it by who got to land on the moon and RETURN first.
The Russians not only had the first satellite but also the first man in space who returned safely.
So to keep this sort here is a short chronology of what happened
JFK RICE MOON SPEECH
September 12, 1962
“…serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”
A mere month later…
October 1962
Cuban Missile Crisis
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/cuban-missile-crisis
THAT SCARED THE WORLD ENOUGH TO GET THE CHANGE STARTED.
June 1963
In language very different from his inaugural address, President Kennedy told Americans in June 1963, “For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
President Kennedy urged Americans to “reexamine Cold War stereotypes and myths and called for a strategy of peace that would make the world safe for diversity.”
July 25, 1963.
Signing of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
There followed two months of the MIC and DS/CFR arm wrestling with the Executive to get their way. War war not jaw jaw. JFK needed to be re-elected and looked likely he would if he had the Florida and Texas Democrats on board. (A nasty bunch as ever existed)
EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
So he flew to Texas, into the Lions mouth of Huston and they publicly executed him as he was going to announce the end of the Cold War as the grand prize.
WHAT JFK WAS ON THE WAY TO SAY..
Remarks Prepared for Delivery at the Trade Mart in Dallas, TX, November 22, 1963 [Undelivered] | JFK Library
Remarks Prepared for Delivery at the Trade Mart in Dallas, TX, November 22, 1963 [Undelivered] | JFK Library
‘The strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions — it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations — it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.”
On his way to say these words – a precursor to not escalating Vietnam and to clipping the clandestine CIA’s and Military Industrial Complex’s wings – he was publicly executed by these forces.
Intra-administration conflict: the CIA v. the state department in South Vietnam during the Kennedy years.
——-
The BS about Von Braun or the equivalent Russian nazi rocket man (better according to many) is risible and seems to be coming out of the Atlantists/cfr camp. I would be worried if the author is teaching students just these opinions.
Lots of conjecture. And what was that nonsense about “Atlantists”?
Atlantists? Obviously a short cut for ancient lizards from a magic drowned island who secretly rule the world with their pyramids and all seeing eyes ….
Wtf do you think I meant?
You have turned up to have a go at the topics and comments on this site.
So far you haven’t addressed the specific points or links provided.
You are coming across as a ‘bellend’ of the Atlantic Council /Integrity Initiative type.
Until you prove other wise – J’accuse.
Lol.
“So far you haven’t addressed the specific points or links provided.” Yes, because the movie “Aquaman” isn’t an actual history of the world.
Another attempt at diversion.
I have given you facts and links.
You are just spaffing off on this site. Enjoying it?
Pretty rich coming from someone who is so committed to ignoring facts that he actually believes the most well documented and scrutinized space missions in history were all “fake”.
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!
I have NEVER CLAIMED the moon landing to be FAKE.
With that masterfjl prat fall perhaps you should give up public spaffing before your sore and grizzled bellend comes of in your spaffy hand and you damage your chances of reproduction even further. ROFLMAO.
NEXT!
This commwnt is superceded by the one appearing above (in my browser)
Ok – FN – i think what we have here is a ‘failure of communication’ …
I had not looked down the comments as i was certain they would be full of ‘fake landing’ crap.
Just having done so – i see that i was correct.
I have also just seen your efforts at taking them ALL on!
I can see that you have taken my comment on the author and my explanation of why the extremely hazardous manned landing competition with the Russians came about to be in some way associated with the denialists.
Given that you are fighting almost everyone here – i will excuse that you have put me in that camp.
You may be confused. The ‘Bellend’ ‘spaffing’ riff i employed refers to Bellingcat, a creation of the Atlantic Council/Nato spooky types to produce supposed internet researched by supposef ‘citizen journalists’ to ‘prove’ that Russia and Putin are behind every bad thing – from MH17 to the novichok pantomime in Salisbury.
Quits?
Hot today, isn’t it?
Be not surprised: Trump pledges continuation of “war-system alternative” space scam
https://imgur.com/Zpk1qLh?s=wa
Rediscovered video sequence US moon landing is well worth a look.
brilliant…
Indeed! Even funnier than ‘nonsense’s unhinged frothings – to cover his/her own doubts, perhaps? :O)
What “doubts” would you like to address?
Imagine being so pathetic that even when someone offers to address your doubts and invites you to air them, you STILL can only manage a passive-aggressive thumbs down.
I’m remembering this from that time which kinda said it all for me – and still does today.
I had intended on posting this up but then saw your post. It puts it all in perspective for me too.
I have to say i don’t really care if they did go to the moon or not, never had any real opinion on it one way or another. We all know what the race into space was about, ICBM technology.
What I will say is when ever i have seen the pictures I’ve always thought the moon looks very small! Why does the horizon seem so close to the astronauts? Why is the horizon curved? there could be very simple explanations, I’ve never wasted time looking for answers.
Why not just fact-check if you’re genuinely curious?
“I’ve never wasted time looking for answers.” Ah. Okay, then.
Was there a point to your comment?
Reading through this thread you look quite fanatical about this subject, but why do you care if others don’t believe? What is it you’re protecting?
“Was there a point to your comment?”
Yes, to show your hypocrisy.
“Reading through this thread you look quite fanatical about this subject, but why do you care if others don’t believe? What is it you’re protecting?”
So you can’t actually address anything I say, instead preferring to concern-troll about my tone? Interesting.
But you don’t have anything to say. You’re just an argument looking for a person.
“But you don’t have anything to say. You’re just an argument looking for a person.”
Interesting take! Especially from a charlatan who refuses to specify his own criteria for what he would accept as “objective independent evidence”, slinks away like a coward from specifying what would count to him as non-dodgy film and footage (and makes a circular argument fallacy by pre-supposing the very thing he’s supposed to be demonstrating: that the film and footage are “fake” because they’re “dodgy”), and has failed miserably to even begin demonstrating that the film and footage could all have been faked with the cinematography of the time. To top it off, he relies purely upon argument by proclamation: naked-assertion fallacies coupled with zero scientific content and backing from any scientific sources.
Thanks for the laugh, brightened my morning.
https://off-guardian.org/2019/07/25/lunar-narratives-landing-on-the-moon-politics-and-the-cold-war/
I always celebrate an article that reveals more of the human condition without framing it in personal vendetta or self vindication.
But the glimpse is soon crowded out by reactions to the subject.
Presenting a seeming unity is the nature of an individual or social persona or presentation as a cover story or adjustment and counter to the hate or conflict that runs beneath.
Such has been the nature of the development of human consciousness as a result of a loss of that which truly unifies to an interjection of imposed control or conflict management.
The love hate alloy of the ‘human conditioning’ is perhaps a polarised replacement of a love that HAS no opposite – and yet the play in opposition is the development of a consciousness through which the freedom to accept existence opens from a sense of being projected or ‘separated’ into existence.
I WANT IT THUS! is recognisable in every heart from earliest infancy and is a grasp of form that image or symbol qualities of meaning that cannot be encapsulated and possessed. And yet while they are given that meaning they are lived as if it is a matter of our possession or a fear and hatred of dispossession.
The ‘Invisible Hand’ idea works also for the undercurrent set of ‘what we are thinking’ – where a narrative sets or frames the funding and acceptance of ideas and development. And this is self-interest working through the current and dominant definitions and themes – which may present as progress for the human good while actively seeking wealth and power of a private agenda set over the human good.
The concentration and consolidation of wealth and power into the very few begs the question what is the worth of such wealth and power if only to disempower and indenture to debt slavery and sacrificial allegiance under a toxic and destructive lie? This is a different question than the attempt to contest within the frame of powerlessness.
The exchange of a passing fantasy gratification for a true relationship has to first insinuate a sense of self-lack and self-doubt – through which to nudge a fantasy of self-inflation that presents ‘a fine set of robes for the King’.
Rather than point the finger (away). Question the active but underlying presumptions or beliefs that are accepted and acted upon as currency of reality. Thought IS currency – and adulterated and diluted supply runs the boom and bust of the carrot and the stick.
The push of current ‘top down’ thinking is for global and granular energy and thought control. Conflict management as an Internment of Things. Nothing new under the Sun then – excepting we replicate the displacement and dissociation from our true nature in ever more Self-alienating systems of substitution for life. Such that the Many take such a managed existence as the only life to be had and in fear to lose are robbed of even the little that they hath.
‘Go forth and multiply’ can be recognised as the nature and function of mind. But whatever is given devotion goes forth – and so a sense of lack is the basis for a world of debt and desecration as an abundance of lack or indeed fear.
This DOES drive the ‘economy’ and technology – but always as the marketisation and weaponisation of a sense of inverted possession and control. The fear that the OTHER carries your own secret intent is the armouring against it that not only sets that belief as (your) reality – but communicates fear, distrust and hate to the OTHER as active and ongoing threat of hate and denial – even if presented as justified self protection or interference.
Fear generates contagion that renders insane. However fear, to be released of ‘creative’ function, has to first be owned instead of flagged to the ‘Other’. The great Unconsciousness is the wish that it go away, be taken away or magicked away or covered over – as an ongoing delay or deferrment or outsourcing to someone else somewhere else. So as to persist the personal sense of face and control against a fear of loss.
It is possible to give willingness to put differences aside and allow what we share in common to find a voice. The difference is all the difference because joy shines of itself – where hyped up presentations are hollow. To know this difference is to know where to give with-ness and worth-ship in any given moment.
False witness may seem to be our face of power and protection – but the cost of the lie is a true relationship – within as without. Instead of guilting our current adaptation, let a working acceptance open space for more perspective by which to recognise and appreciate our lives – because what is covered over is not lost so much as put out of sight as IF out of mind.
While we quibble over the moon landings or Sept 11, the Corparasites
continue to rage, rip, rape and rule.
Let’s focus on the REAL enemies.
To combat the real enemies, you need science, not just outrage. The moon landing isn’t just about some guys walking on the moon; it’s about the nature of knowing. And if we tell each other that it’s okay if people believe in just any bullshit, then we leave them open to manipulation.
Mind manipulation requires two conditions.
A collapsing education system and weapons of mass distraction.
Both have been planned and carried out by insatiable corporations.
The enemy wears a suit.
How does this preclude what I said?
Who is telling us “it’s okay if people believe in just any bullshit”?
The imbeciles in this comment section screeching, hissing and bleating that the moon landings were “faked”. I guess these imbeciles think they’re more resourceful than the KGB, which according, was “tricked” while stupidly named YouTube fake account trolls have “cracked” the “greatest hoax of the 20th century.”
“The imbeciles in this comment section” are not saying ““it’s okay if people believe in just any bullshit”. You’re the one who said it.
No, YOU did, but implicitly, not explicitly. After all, you’re telling us that corrupt taxi-drivers are to be trusted over and above actual scientists and engineers.
Oh hello, Mr Nonsense.
First off, if you’re going to argue about what people said “implicitly” then you can make them say anything you want.
Second, I have no idea who Jarrah White is but I assume he is the one you referred to (ten times) as a “corrupt taxi-driver”. Not quite sure what that is. Perhaps a Travis Bickle character? (And, incidentally, repeating a claim ten times doesn’t automatically make it true.)
Third, anyone who actually says “it’s okay if people believe in just any bullshit” can’t say anything else since they have effectively allowed everything. The folk who are claiming the moon landings were faked may be wrong but they’re not saying anyone can believe anything.
You’re right, actually. Moon landing deniers DON’T think it’s okay for people to believe in just any bullshit. They want people to believe in THEIR bullshit.
Here’s one possible explanation for such skepticism. We all know the real reason for the exploration into space, it wasn’t about doing the difficult thing but about nuking your neighbors!
Perhaps flights into space were a real aspiration in the 60’s as a cover to develop military satellites & missiles, maybe it was their intention to visit the moon for what ever reason (probably to install some sort of weapon system in the future, to get the edge on their opponent) Maybe not.
Maybe it all went tits up & to save face the CIA staged the landing. Maybe the CIA staged the landing as a cover. What we do know is this would be typical behavior of the deep state. What we also know is we will never learn the truth.
I have watched a few conspiracy theory docs about the “fake” moon landings, I have no opinion on it. But in one doc they had a segment with a scientist who like you rebutted any notion of it being faked, at the end the only real evidence he had to prove it, was that he had been inspired by NASA since his childhood, & NASA doesn’t lie, right?
Just like liberals never lie, with everything they do being ‘science based’!
“Maybe”, “maybe”, “maybe”, you blather. And still no actual arguments.
Well that was a bit rude of you.
You keep asserting your certainty it happened but offer no evidence.
You have a few eye witness accounts, many anecdotal stories, some dodgy film & pictures. If I offered you some dodgy film, a few eye witness accounts & lots of anecdote that big foot existed you would rubbish any claim without physical verifiable evidence.
Any scientist worth the title would never make the claim of anything being a certainty, science deals in likelihood not certainty! You my friend are not a scientist , well not in the true meaning of the word. You’re probability one of those Liberal scientism worshipers.
Wheres your evidence it happened?
Your response was replete with naked assertions and outright falsehoods. For example, you stupidly claim that “dodgy films” are offered as evidence, but you ignore (or are simply ignorant of) the fact that the films show exactly what we would expect them to show if indeed they were shot on the moon, such as that the dust behaves in exactly the way one would expect of dust in a vacuum (i.e the dust doesn’t loiter in the “air” – because there is no air. It falls in parabolic arches rather than swirling). Your claim of “dodginess” is a function of your own laziness, not a statement about the quality of the films themselves.
“You have a few eye witness accounts,” This is a banality. Only a direct witnesses to being on the moon are available, because only a few people went to the moon.
“any anecdotal stories,” All of which conveniently point to the same story even if they are “anecdotal” (rather than thousands of detailed accounts by engineers, technicians, scientists, mission planners, the astronaut corps, and many other witnesses and participants to events).
“some dodgy film & pictures.” According to no actual engineer or scientist are these films and photos “dodgy”, but nice try attempting to pass off your ignorance/laziness/indifference to said film and photos as foregone fact.
“If I offered you some dodgy film, a few eye witness accounts & lots of anecdote that big foot existed you would rubbish any claim without physical verifiable evidence.”
Pure straw-man argument.
“Any scientist worth the title would never make the claim of anything being a certainty, science deals in likelihood not certainty!”
All actual scientists worth their title affirm that likelihood that the Apollo missions happened is extremely high.
“You my friend are not a scientist , well not in the true meaning of the word. You’re probability one of those Liberal scientism worshipers.”
But given your sophomoric statements and naked assertions that fly in the face of what every scientist worth the title affirms, you ARE a scientist? How does that work, exactly? Bleating about “scientism” might suffice for a drunken gathering of family and friends, but it won’t erase the analyses of geologists studying the returned moon rocks, or the assessments of Soviet science.
“Wheres your evidence it happened?”
Countless scientific papers presented at scientific symposia and published in scientific papers pertaining to the findings of the missions; the moon rocks, which have been analyzed and verified by many professional geologists worth their title, including from the rival Soviet Union; the affirmation by the Soviet Union and its entire scientific establishment that the missions happened; the reams of documentation freely available on NASA’s website showing technical specifications of hardware and systems, and operating manuals for this hardware; the massive paper trail of engineering and consultation between departments, project managers, and systems specialists; the countless hours of engineering development and testing, resulting in hardware refinement and/or redesign; the countless crystal-clear photos showing exactly what we would expect if they were taken on the moon (the nature of the lighting and shadows); the many hours of film showing exactly what we would expect if they were shot on the moon (the nature of one-sixth gravity, dust dynamics from disturbed regolith, lighting and shadows); the software developed for the missions and the fact that the software engineers had to be consulted during critical phases of the missions when there were malfunctions; the reams of flight logs and telemetry; the technical problems faced during the missions.
The evidence is overwhelming and completely apparent to all but the most deluded and inoculated against science. Of course, if you prefer to get your science from corrupt taxi-drivers, children’s coloring books, and YouTube fake account trolls, then you’ll deny the evidence trenchantly so as to avoid looking at any of the evidence. But that won’t change the fact that people in the sciences and in aerospace engineering won’t take you the least bit seriously when you offer your unsolicited “opinions”.
Ewww rattled are we?
Objective independent evidence only if you please. Nothing you’ve quoted so far qualifies.
Film, photos, professional witnesses, subjective speculation & assumption aren’t acceptable. We aren’t talking about AGW.
For example how would we know what dust does or what moon rock looks like if no one has been there? Just because you say so don’t make it so. Interesting point you make about moon dust, doing what we would expect it to do! just sounds suspect, not proof.
I only want facts not fanatical fictions.
Reverting to ad-hom insults & attacks only makes you look childish & less credible not knowledgeable.
“Film, photos, professional witnesses, subjective speculation & assumption aren’t acceptable.”
Wait: footage and photos don’t count as evidence? Then why do you imbeciles keep claiming that it can be used to “disprove” the moon landings?
“professional witnesses”
Tens of thousands of them, not one of whom has ever recanted their position. There, fixed it for you. Somebody reading “professional witnesses” might get the erroneous impression that it was only a coupe of guys.
“For example how would we know what dust does or what moon rock looks like if no one has been there?”
You’re saying that geologists don’t know what they’re talking about and that subsequent non-US orbital probes using remote chemical sensors haven’t verified what the Apollo astronauts brought back? You’re saying that the Luna probes sent and brought back by the Soviet Union didn’t corroborate the findings of Apollo?
“Just because you say so don’t make it so”
Ah, except it’s not “just me” who says it, but the ENTIRE world scientific community. So yeah, take it up with them and see how well you fare with your “opinions”. Besides, you’re the imbecile making naked assertion fallacies about “dodgy film and footage” without even bothering to specify what would count as non-dodgy film and footage. Just because you say it’s dodgy doesn’t make it so.
“Interesting point you make about moon dust, doing what we would expect it to do! just sounds suspect, not proof.”
Well no, not if you actually consult physical science. if you choose to ignore it, however, then sure you can use whatever naked assertion fallacy you want to argue your case.
“I only want facts not fanatical fictions.”
Yet when facts are presented to you, you claim that facts don’t count. To avoid this, perhaps you could specify exactly what you think counts as “objective independent evidence”, so that I can steer clear of things that don’t meet that criterion for you. That is, unless you’re fearful of doing so.
Does big foot exist?
I want to believe….But
See that, everyone? Once again, pure straw-man argument. And, oh, look at that, everyone: he failed (how “surprising”) to specify what he would accept as “objective independent evidence” after being invited to do so; he failed to specify what would count as non-dodgy film and footage by his own chosen criteria, even as he failed to show any evidence that this film and footage could all have been faked using the cinematography technology at the time. He’s a worthless troll, in other words. Can you say “defeated and exhausted”, Question This? It’s what you are. You’re done here.
We live in a post truth era.
You have to choose your own reality now, according to personal taste and convenience.
There are no longer any facts, just opinions masquerading as certainties.
You can believe in moon landings or faked moon landings according to personal whims.
You can become the opposite sex, or a zebra, or a lamp post, just by identifying yourself as such.
Really mark? The old rules of physics, chemistry, biology can now be suspended at will, can they? Would you mind demonstrating that by coming over here and just stepping out of this high window – as Daniel Dunglas Home and Joseph of Cupertino are reported to have done – and floating around above the ground, in freely-chosen defiance of gravity…? No? No, I thought not… 🙂
Though, as a matter of actual hard fact I do think that the evidence is rather good that odd-ball individuals with unusual levels of a particular set of – apparently universal – mental talents can indeed do the sort of stuff that Home and Joseph (and others) did. Seen a fair bit of such ‘impossible’ stuff myself, in a long quest for close encounters with psi, so I’m imbued with that firm empirical conviction that comes most strongly from direct personal witnessing. But that’s a whole other story. 🙂
(There you are nonsense: Another bait for you to rise to! :O) )
“The old rules of physics, chemistry, biology can now be suspended at will, can they?”
According to imbeciles like you, they can be completely discarded and a new”truth” erected in place of the scientific method when the answer comes out “wrong” and doesn’t align with your dogmato-lunatic horseshit.
Why not? Works fine with 9/11, Skripal, Syria gas attacks, MH17, anything you like. Lewis Carroll knew what he was talking about.
Hmmmm, “interesting”. I guess anything to avoid looking at evidence, huh?
Yes, that’s right. There are no such things as solid objects. We don’t exist. Nothing exists. We are all a big hologram. You can believe in anything you like now. Anything goes. Whatever takes your fancy. Next week I’m going to believe I’m a zebra.
Close, mark; but not quite the most interesting hypothesis; you need to look into Tom Campbell’s ‘My Big TOE’ for that. He agrees that what we call the physical, material world is actually a virtual reality, whose ‘solid, material’ objects are only rendered to the perceiver as an information-stream when a unit of consciousness – a mind, of some sort – takes a look to see. Otherwise, there’s nothing there at all; the rendering intelligence doesn’t waste computing time attempting to render information when no mind is demanding it. “If a tree falls in the wood when no-one’s watching…” No, because *when no-one’s watching*, there is no tree, nor any wood. However, the evolved rule-set of this reality – the ‘laws’ of physics – continue to apply, consistent with previous known evolutions, and constrain the experiences of any mind playing in it.
Which is why you won’t step out of that window, will you mark? Because despite all the airy hyper-idealism which you’re purporting here, you know damn’ fine that you’d get a broken leg! This reality may be virtual, but it still has strict rules, which we purport to break at our peril – as with going to the Moon without first overcoming all the intractable physics problems that that presents.
“which we purport to break at our peril – as with going to the Moon without first overcoming all the intractable physics problems that that presents.”
Literally no engineer claims that the physics problems were intractable. They’re only intractable in the lazy minds of people like you and your tax-driver “space geniuses” who are too shiftless to do a bit of science instead of engaging in naked assertion fallacies.
Moon landing deniers: “These problems are physically intractable. A corrupt tax-driver told me so, so it must be true.”
Also moon landing deniers: “Millions of actual engineers say otherwise? Well, they’re all shills, stupid or paid by the government, then.”
It’s true. We now live in an era where the intellectual equivalents of pederasts have an equal “say” in matters of science as actual scientists.
Watch Mazzucco’s film American Moon. It is no nonsense and well made (like his 911 film, it considers two sides).
The moon landings were faked and cannot be replicated with current technology. The photography was a terrible effort especially, and the best part of the film is the commentary of professional photographers who are looking at the Apollo photos analytically for the first time.
We should just move on from this though. The event (whatever its true nature) was a kind of apotheosis of the ‘religion of progress’, which- in case anyone hasn’t noticed yet, has gone into reverse.
Instead we might focus on the publication of Webb’s second article tomorrow about the Epstein blackmail ring which is a huge conspiracy with much more immediate consequences.
There are loads of problems with Mazzucco’s film, crank, loads of problems. Firstly, he consults fashion photographers for the section on photography. What a complete joke and scandal. Why not consult moon enthusiasts, people who know about lunar photography and conditions on the moon that affect the photographs. Let’s take the spotlight and fall-off bullshit. First of all, even to a know-nothing like me even if you perceive in certain photos there is something that resembles spotlight and fall-off what about beyond the fall-off – how come beyond the fall-off it doesn’t go even darker – it does in terrestrial photography though.
He often quotes respected moon hoax debunker clavius and then tries to debunk him but he seems to somehow miss the debunking that clavius does of his claims.
Explanation for seeming evidence of spotlight and fall-off
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/2370/apollo-11-light-fall-off
I won’t go into all of the problems but just to say that there are many that I think could have been avoided by a decent Google search. I will admit some of the things he raises strike me as puzzling but with all the extremely convincing evidence we went, they only seem, at best, anomalies which could be explained with better understanding. There is simply no comprehensive argument for the moon landings being a hoax.
For the moon landings to be a hoax all the purported evidence of going to the moon must fit “hoax” and it absolutely cannot be made to fit that hypothesis.
I struggle to believe. The photos are just one reason why.
Imagine having your camera strapped to your chest, and no ability to use the viewfinder. Then add a cumbersome suit with limited movement.
Bloody impressive images considering how difficult it was back then (they did not have point/shoot and post processing).
There are many other reasons to doubt it happened, including shadows of various angles on the lunar surface, the appearance (and condition) of the Landers and the Van Allen belt (no one, before or since Apollo has gone near it).
It doesn’t matter really, the damage was done. The Russians hid the traces of their attempts and the world believed the yanks were demigods.
“There are many other reasons to doubt it happened, including shadows of various angles on the lunar surface, the appearance (and condition) of the Landers and the Van Allen belt (no one, before or since Apollo has gone near it).”
None of these are actually reasons to doubt the landings, given that these “difficulties” have all been addressed countless times. Here’s a resourceful that provides the scientific (not dogmato-lunatic) take on the moon landings: https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com The tricky part is getting moon landing denying dogmatists to acknowledge the refutations of their lies. You’ve provided only memes, not actual arguments. It’s notable that no actual scientists or engineers actually agree with you. This should worry you, by the way.
No one is selling me anything.
http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/
Plenty in there to make anyone question the narrative. Great publication date too.
That’s a joke, right? Unz? Yeah, okay. Let’s also defer to circus clowns from now on for science and engineering.
“Plenty in there to make anyone question the narrative.”
Sure, if you don’t care too much about facts that are readily available from scientific sources and prefer to get your science from charlatans and liars.
“Great publication date too.” Sure, if you’re a white nativist and jingoistic bottom-feeder. Otherwise, not so much.
But hey, maybe I’m wrong. Could you, by any chance, pick out a few items that you find particularly compelling? I just need one or two items for my demonstration (feel free to provide more if you feel the need).
Guess I need to look at April fools Day with a different perspective from now on…
You seem to like your ad hominems too.
I do not believe man went along with the module on it’s trip to the moon. Can you prove they went?
Comparing the Venera program to Apollo makes an unmanned return trip to the moon look easy.
“I do not believe man went along with the module on it’s trip to the moon. Can you prove they went?”
Of course I can. It’s getting you corrupt imbeciles to acknowledge the proof which is the hard part. Of course, you could always just inform yourself, but that’s probably not par the for the course for someone like you, because then you’d have to let go of your claim to “being in the know” against the “sheeple”.
“Comparing the Venera program to Apollo makes an unmanned return trip to the moon look easy.”
Sure, if you know nothing about the life-support requirements of manned space flight, the payload requirements satisfied by the Saturn V, and the various phases of the journey. If you choose ignorance, then lots of things seem “easy” – which is why you’re not any sort of engineer, technician or scientist, and never will be, and instead are forced to consult children’s coloring books for your “science”.
Nothing of what you write proves man went along.
What does a pay load prove? Or stages? Or the amount of sheer grunt required to break free of gravity?
Three men = 225kg approx. Apollo weighed 2,812,272kg (of which 75% was the fuel alone).
Any chance of some proof instead of insults in your next reply please?
That post wasn’t meant to prove the authenticity of Apollo. It was simply a refutation of your logically fallacious claim about Venera and Apollo.
“Any chance of some proof instead of insults in your next reply please?”
Any chance that you’ll actually acknowledge the proof instead of pretending that it doesn’t exist whenever it’s presented? What sort of proof would you qualify as such? Moon rocks analyzed and verified by geologists? Countless scientific papers have been written about those. A search in a scientific database or on Google Scholar will reveal these papers, many of which you can download and read for free. You can also refer to the abundant documentation on NASA’s own free to use website, where many documents pertaining to flight dynamics, audio logs, telemetry, equipment manuals, and test results can be found. There you’ll also find all the photos taken during the missions, as well as many photos of the training programs. The computer code used on the LEM can also be downloaded (I forget whether that can be found on NASA’s website, but it’s now freely available) You can also easily find abundant footage of the moon missions, including the astronauts walking on the surface of the moon. If you visit air and space museums around the US, you’ll be able to observe much of the hardware of the Apollo program and Apollo missions. Blueprints for many components can be found at the National Archives, including those for the Saturn V rockets. But tell me: what did you have in mind? What would count to you as proof?
FN, though I upvoted all your posts (including this one) I think you may have been unjust to Ron Unz (easily done because Unz is a complex character). This is his editorial comment BTL:
“Ron Unz says:
April 1, 2019 at 3:46 am GMT • 900 Words
Well, I’d never even known that Moon Hoax theories existed until a year or two ago, and my initial impression was that they seemed totally ridiculous. Now after reading this lengthy exposition of the material, my current view is that…they still seem just as totally ridiculous.
… Aside from that sort of loose speculation, there seems essentially zero solid evidence supporting a Moon Hoax.”
And Lady Bracknell adds: “The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.”
@FN. Correction: I have just now downvoted this one:
“I do indeed think that many people who assert that 9/11 was a false flag/inside job are imbeciles, not because it would be beyond the capabilities or cynicism of the US government …. For example, they keep repeating the meme “Oh, so you think that that the steel beams melted?” while not realizing that the beams would not have had to melt, but to have simply weakened in order of the buildings to collapse.”
Compartmentalized science: you know a lot about the Moon Landing but might benefit from a supplementary course on Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth”.
Regards, V
Nice to see you back, vexarb. FN said yesterday he will consult my webpage on staged events and he hasn’t come back yet to debunk anything 🙂
I haven’t started reading your website with any real attention just yet.
I didn’t say that there might not be a 9/11 conspiracy by the government, or that professionals don’t ever succumb to group-think and dogmatism; I’m saying that many people (not necessarily most or even a majority, but many) who partake in 9/11 “trutherism” are imbeciles because their arguments are piss-poor and they DON’T CARE. A lot of them, like moon landing deniers, use a sort of shot-gun approach to truth: they fire off a bunch of arguments which “sound” scientific, and hope that they’ll land a hit. If all of the arguments from a salvo are refuted, they just re-load with some more that they’ve picked up from their “sources” and fire another shot. In reality, they hope that through the sheer number of “arguments” out there, their opponents will be worn out and give up, thus “confirming” that the 9/11 conspiracy is “true”. This is similar to what the right-wing in the US does: they throw as many lies into the discourse as possible, knowing that their opponents won’t have time to address them all. It has to be faced squarely and honestly that a lot of 9/11 truthers, and virtually all moon landing deniers, are simply corrupt and unwilling to play by rules of scientific rigor.
FN, I fear your reply is long on rhetoric but short on the very “rules of scientific rigor” which you deployed so ably in debunking the debunkers of the Moon Landing. But when you have taken a course on Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth you will be able to Fight Nonsense like this: ” the beams would not have had to melt, but to have simply weakened in order of the buildings to collapse.”
I feel sure (knowing your respect for “the rules of scientific rigor”) that you will Fight the Bendy Beams Nonsense all the more vigorously because you yourself fell for it (before reading up on Architects and Engineers). I know I believed in Bendy Beams before being recommended to study A&E for 911 Truth, around 2011. Just imagine: for 10 years I was blithely believing the Official 911 Report on Bendy Beams — and I used to call myself an engineer!
I don’t feel that it’s helpful to allow ourselves to veer too far afield from the moon landings. After all, That’s what this article is about.
1) Please point me to where FN ever employs scientific rigour or anything beyond mere assertion backed up with abuse.
2) The ‘rules of scientific rigour’ clearly require the one making the extraordinary claim to provide the proof. This has manifestly not been done by NASA or anyone else.
We ought to have proof positive of the Apollo moon landings, but we don’t. This is a problem for any objective analyst
“We ought to have proof positive of the Apollo moon landings, but we don’t.” An interesting take from someone who doesn’t know that the Apollo 16 mission carried a telescope that was placed on the moon, and that Hubble Space Telescope resides not in HEO but in LEO.
“The ‘rules of scientific rigour’ clearly require the one making the extraordinary claim to provide the proof. This has manifestly not been done by NASA or anyone else.”
Sure, if you dogmatically ignore the endless documentation provided for free on NASA’s own website and ignore all the scientific papers published by geologists in scientific journals analyzing the returned lunar rocks. What did you have in mind by way of “proof”, though? Perhaps you’re using the word in an unconventional way?
Please be more scientifically rigorous next time. Hopefully you won’t make these sorts of sophomoric mistakes again. They could have been easily avoided simply by referring to the publicly available documentation and using simple search engines.
Thanks.
Ron Unz studied physics at Cambridge and Stanford. He regards the moon landing as an open question and, like everyone who’s interested in the subject, is waiting for a qualified team, like the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, to do a thorough investigation.
He “regards it as an open question” because he wants your money. He plays on your piss-poor knowledge of Apollo and spoon-feeds you “doubts about Apollo’s authenticity.” Please stop being someone who he can bank on.
“waiting for a qualified team…to do a thorough investigation.
You’re saying that the Soviet scientific establishment wasn’t qualified? According to people like you, they were “way ahead” of the US space program at the time. It’s also a matter of simple historical record that they fully affirmed the authenticity of Apollo and its missions. I mention this because you haven’t gotten a single thing right so far.
“Van Allen belt (no one, before or since Apollo has gone near it).”
If these are the sorts of “arguments” that are offered to you as “proofs” that the moon landings were faked, then I would strongly suggest trying to get your money back from the charlatans selling you this story.
While not advocating for the Moon hoax theory, it is actually true that no humans have gone through the Van Allen belts, either before the Apollo missions or after.
It is indeed true, but it’s also irrelevant, as I explained. The reason people haven’t been back to the moon is budgetary and political.
Humans haven’t simply not gone back to the Moon, They haven’t even ventured into high earth orbit either before or since the Apollo missions. Which means the Apollo missions remain the only manned missions ever to venture into the Van Allen belts. It’s reasonable to think this lacuna is odd, even if one doesn’t believe the Apollo missions were an elaborate hoax
It may be but it doesn’t serve as evidence we didn’t go. The evidence is, in fact, overwhelming that astronauts did go. My goodness! There is such abundant evidence and all people can do is come up with unconnected, seeming anomalies that do not stand up to scrutiny and which, in many cases, only serve to reinforce the “we went” hypothesis. Lunar conditions are so essentially different from those on earth – they simply cannot be faked and no one has ever duplicated the supposed fakery. Why not duplicate the alleged fakery to show that it was, indeed, faked? All the millions of moon hoaxers why don’t they set up a kickstarter campaign and re-create the moon landings exactly as they were originally faked … using the technology available then, LOL?
Sorry OfG for double posting this. My previous post was at the bottom of the thread . Since you have two serial posters dominating the discussion allow me this indulgence to challenge the ‘overwhelming’ evidence………..
Jarrah White and his Moonfaker series is an excellent source of information should one be interested in challenging science with science.
How do you know it’s an “excellent source of information”? Because it comfort-confirms your dogmato-lunatic B.S.? Note that this guy doesn’t work in the sciences. He’s a YouTube “film maker”. The fact that ALL your sources are of this type should worry you.
Nonsense shoots from the hip once again………….
A simple lookup of his YouTube channel would have revealed he has just this year completed a Bsc minor in astrophysics.
Anyways it matters not the qualities of the person but the quality of the argument to which you offer nothing but ad hominem bile.
How have you verified the qualify of this arguments? Have you fact-checked them? If so, what scientific resource did you use? And how do you account for the fact that thousands upon thousands of PhDs, post-docs and professional scientists who have actually worked in the field for years or even decades, many specializing in astrophysics, planetary science, or extraterrestrial geology all affirm the authenticity of Apollo? Note also what I said: that he doesn’t WORK in the sciences. Having a BSc minoring in astrophysics doesn’t mean he’s done any original research. Why should his degree be impressive to me, anyway? Many of his claims don’t even deal with astrophysics as such, like his claims about what what von Braun supposedly did in Antarctica (supposedly “collecting meteorites” – which he actually didn’t, as can be seen by the lack of entries for von Braun or the group he was with in the Meteorical Society’s Meteorical Bulletin Database, which catalogs all known meteorites recovered by scientists: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/ There is no record or indication anywhere from a scientific source that von Braun was there to recover lunar meteorites, and von Braun himself never hinted he was there to do that. Add to this that he was only in Antarctica for a week, rather than an “extended trip” as Jarrah claims).
You can duplicate everything you see in any Moon footage by simply speeding up the frame rate of the film.
I don’t say that means the footage is faked.But simple truth is – there is NO proof the Apollo missions were not faked. I wish there was, but there isn’t.
“You can duplicate everything you see in any Moon footage by simply speeding up the frame rate of the film.”
Patently false, of course. When you speed up the footage, the movement of the astronauts suddenly looks jerky and unnatural, exactly how a human WOULDN’T move. The only smooth, natural looking motion is when the frame rate is kept at the presented frame rate. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU0Rgpdujzo
(look especially at the astronaut who has to push himself up because he tripped over. Speed up this footage to see a perfect example of something that refutes what you’re claiming)
“I don’t say that means the footage is faked.But simple truth is – there is NO proof the Apollo missions were not faked. I wish there was, but there isn’t.”
There’s reams of proof that t wasn’t fake. You can start right here, with numerous examples of proof from third-party (i.e non-US) sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
No MLS, it’s for YOU to PROVE that the missions were faked.
If you live in an alternate reality then it’s not the responsibility of normal people who have to prove to YOU that they are living in the normal world.
You display the height of arrogance, ignorance and crossing over into delusion.
MLS has taken a remarkably moderate view in all of this, compared to most, and certainly isn’t advocating for fakery. Your response seems way out of proportion. Surely you agree that taking the unsupported word of government agencies for anything is not rational or wise. That seems to be all he/she is saying.
It appears that two of my responses – one to MLS refuting his claims about the Hubble Space Telescope and the notion that no telescopes were ever used on the moon by any of the Apollo missions, and the other comment addressing a user claiming that all blueprints, telemetry and technology from Apollo have been “destroyed” – have been censored. In both responses, I provided sources, facts and documentation. I hope that censoring posts that fulfill what you yourself requested of me isn’t you idea of an obligation to the truth.
“Surely you agree that taking the unsupported word of government agencies for anything is not rational or wise.”
A straw-man argument. MLS is claiming that there is “no evidence” that the Apollo missions were not faked. This is demonstrably untrue, and in no way relies upon “trusting” the US government. So what’s with this nonsense about “the unsupported word of the government” in relation to Apollo? Unsupported by evidence? That would be news to the world’s entire scientific community.
“They haven’t even ventured into high earth orbit either before or since the Apollo missions. ”
Why WOULD they? Can you tell us what the actual value of this would be?
Why would they send humans into high earth orbit if they could?
Seriously?
They would send humans into HEO if they could for the same reasons they send the Hubble into HEO. Unparalleled views into deep space.
Same reason you would think the would have sent a decent telescope to the Moon on at least one of the Apollo missions. The images of our galaxy such a telescope could have picked up would be unrivalled to this day. The information we could have garnered would be incalculable
Why didn’t they do that?
Wish I could think of a good reason
The Hubble Space Telescope is in LEO, not HEO. Where did you get the idea that it’s in HEO? Astronauts have been to the Hubble multiple times to make repairs and conduct maintenance.
“Same reason you would think the would have sent a decent telescope to the Moon on at least one of the Apollo missions. ”
They did have a telescope: on Apollo 16, a telescope called the Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph was set up on the surface of the moon.
“The images of our galaxy such a telescope could have picked up would be unrivalled to this day. ”
Not so. At the time, a visible light spectrum telescope on the moon would not have been better than the Earth-base ones, due to the size-constraints on such a telescope. And they certainly wouldn’t have provided a view of the universe superior to the Hubble.
It has to be conceded that (a) there was extensive lilterature about the expected dangers of flying out of low Earth orbit, including through the VABs; (b) that this technical/ biological problem was basically disregarded as the Apollo program progressed, and that there is next to no mention of it in the NASA literature around the moonshots; (c) with the initial testing of space flight on mammals including primates, it is simply unbelievable that lunar probes containing living specimens were not sent round the moon before Apollo 11 allegedly flew out there : to the best of my limited knowledge, the A11 crew were not just the first humans to venture out beyond low earth orbit, they were the first living organisms of any kind, and, the 12 Apollo astronaughts are the only living organisms to have been sent above a few hundred miles.
https://www.space.com/nasa-deep-space-radiation-mission-biosentinel.html
to the best of my limited knowledge, the A11 crew were not just the first humans to venture out beyond low earth orbit, they were the first living organisms of any kind,
-should read ‘Apollo 8’ which we are told was the first circumlunar flight.
Learn about the Soviet Zond 5 mission’s biological cargo. China has landed a probe on the moon with plants in it; that kind of puts another dent in your notion that nothing living can go through the belts.
A repeat reminder: no actual scientist agrees with you. The science you’re using must be from a textbook with entire pages missing.
“it is simply unbelievable that lunar probes containing living specimens were not sent round the moon before Apollo 11 allegedly flew out there”
Actually, they were, but keep believing in B.S. comfort-fed to you by your corrupt tax-driver film makers.
It isn’t either or – but both AND…
The PR or marketing of image is at the fore and so it cant be allowed to fail.
The studio work doesn’t prove everything is staged.
At another level we may see that Everything is staged – but if we give power of mind to Others or to circumstances, we use them as a proxy for our own story or ‘staging our scene’.
The Big Lie is the politics of audacity to the capacity to get away with it.
But once you accept what such ‘power’ gives as your own, where is your way out?
Only yielding up or releasing what you took to be your ‘own’ at cost of a truth you did not and could not make. But thought to replace.
Truth is beyond our capacity to make, and so cannot in truth be unmade – but our true awareness can be denied and ruled out by a will set in conflict with itself.
Conflicting narratives may serve the same underlying purpose.
Bloody hell, Flaxgirl finally talking common sense! Whoopee!
Common – but quite possibly mistaken in this case, even so…
I realised that common sense was not so common before I woke up to 9/11.
I always use the same method, Frank Speaker, whether I’m judging 9/11 or the moon landings and I always ensure that all the evidence can fit my chosen hypothesis and that there is no convincing evidence supporting any other hypothesis – it’s true my understanding is not great enough to claim a good understanding of the moon landings but as so very many of the alleged anomalies are easily explained and as so much of the masses of evidence presented has not been debunked I think that, on balance, one has to choose the “real” hypothesis. When someone explains how the hours upon hours of audio was faked I’ll perk up and really start to look carefully. Also, I think sunlight reflected on the moon with a black sky is very, very difficult to fake and I haven’t seen evidence of it. Even 50 years later in First Man – you can tell it doesn’t look exactly like the moon.
I judge primarily by the evidence while most others (as far as I can tell) judge by their invested-in beliefs, prejudices and emotions, including you. You give the impression of being emotionally invested in the stories of those poor people who died at Bologna Station, 9/11, etc and that is what prevents you from seeing the truth. When it comes to the power elite you need to be able to view events by disengaging from the story told and looking at the actual evidence. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, a priori, to believe in real deaths at Bologna station or on 9/11 because every other part of the story has been shown to be false nor is there any obvious motive to have killed the people for real, nor is anything to suggest they couldn’t have been faked. And then, there is zero evidence supporting real death and injury while there is compelling evidence that they were faked.
It’s very straightforward. Where there is no motive to kill people for real:
psychological operation is NOT a synonym for false flag;
psychological operation is a synonym for false-flag hoax.
These “documentary film makers” are a joke and not taken seriously by anyone even remotely knowledgeable about the moon landings.
This interview with Massimo Mazzucco is also illuminating. Amongst other things, he says he’s absolutely convinced that the pictures were faked, and he tells why in detail (he’s a long-time professional film photographer). His overall guess of what went wrong is persuasive:
I’m so, so sorry that you still believe this garbage by this fraudulent charlatan who isn’t taken seriously by anyone in the sciences 🙁 How old are you again?
“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”—Wernher von Braun, Conquest of the Moon.
Of course, as we now know, Von Braun was wrong. Tt turned out to be easy to go to the moon and return, despite the obstacles in our way:
As late as 1967, the Apollo program was in disarray. They were years behind schedule. Nothing was working properly. Early missions were repeatedly delayed. A fire in Apollo 1 killed 3 astronauts.
One of the astronauts killed in the Apollo 1 disaster — Gus Grissom, was so disenchanted with the progress they were making he hung a lemon off the Apollo lander. He felt they were so far behind that there was little chance of them making it in time to fulfil Kennedy’s promise.
In May 1968, Neil Armstrong was almost killed during failed testing of the Lunar lander. If NASA were unable to successfully land the craft on Earth during testing, what chance did they have to do it on the Moon?
Happily, just over a year later, everything came together perfectly and on their very first attempt they successfully landed on the Moon without a hitch.
The Apollo landings were more than 45 years ago, yet it remains completely unprecedented as a technical achievement.
Nobody has come anywhere near to replicating what was achieved. Not even the Russians, who were years ahead of the US in the space race, ever came close.
Apollo sent 12 men 240,000 miles to the Moon and back, yet after the last mission in 1972, no other human being has ever travelled more than 400 miles above the surface of the Earth.
Despite being orders of magnitude more complex and dangerous than anything else ever attempted before or since, and despite sending men 600 times further than would ever be achieved again, Apollo’s safety record is miraculous.
All 12 men returned to Earth safely, whilst 14 astronauts died on the space shuttle program alone, despite never having travelled more than 200 miles above the Earth.
NASA today admits it can’t go back to the Moon, citing the lethal effects of radiation.
NASA administrator Dan Goldin gave an interview in 1994 where he admitted they would have to find a way to overcome the effects of cosmic radiation if man was ever to venture out of Earth orbit, despite the fact they had successfully done it 6 times 25 years earlier.
In 2005, NASA again said the radiation problem was a ‘showstopper’ for man ever going back to the Moon.
NASA achieved things 45 years ago using crude technology that we couldn’t do today, one of the few examples in modern human history where mankind’s progress has retreated backwards.
Godfree, while the evidence shows astronauts landed on the moon it also clearly shows the Challenger disaster was a hoax – and a laughable one at that – although we might say they’re all laughable when you blow away the magic propaganda dust.
https://youtu.be/LihPQvIgx70
The Challenger people are all still very much alive and kicking and in public view unlike most dead “crisis actors”. When you look at the professions of most of the Challenger people they are completely unrelated to space travel. You don’t send lay people into space.
Your argument against the moon landings falls into the logical fallacy, argumentum ad speculum, where you speculate about the proof of something according to seemingly evidentiary facts which are not in fact evidentiary. There is masses and masses of purported evidence showing we went to the moon and people keep trying to poke holes in it – without success. You need to find significant holes in the actual evidence.
I am in no position to argue against the moon landing, nor did I do so.
I, along with Dr. von Braun, simply raised questions about its feasibility.
I did so after spending three years researching the Evil China hypothesis, and finding it to be an elaborate conspiracy which, to date, has cost taxpayers $100 billion and is entirely without foundation.
So, when I paused from my labors and found Wagging the Moondoggie, I was primed to at least probe further.
Since then, I have raised the questions above and have yet to see one of them answered satisfactorily.
The von Braun quote has now been “answered”, however, whether your questions are answered satisfactorily or not they are not relevant to proof of whether we went or not. That needs to be decided according to the evidence presented that we went – and so far, I’ve seen no satisfactory debunking of it.
“I am in no position to argue against the moon landing, nor did I do so.”
You literally presented a bunch of falsehoods purporting to show that the moon landings were faked. So I suppose, in fact, that you’re correct in saying that you’re in “no position to argue against the moon landings”. It’s because you don’t use real arguments, only easily refutable memes.
“I, along with Dr. von Braun, simply raised questions about its feasibility.”
And you, unlike Dr von Braun, failed miserably to adjust your questions in light of new insights. Quote mining is the preserve of charlatans, not of people trying to get at the truth.
“I did so after spending three years researching the Evil China hypothesis, and finding it to be an elaborate conspiracy which, to date, has cost taxpayers $100 billion and is entirely without foundation.”
But you didn’t actually bother spending any of these three years making sure that your questions about the Apollo program weren’t Red Herrings, non sequiturs, or other logical fallacies or otherwise without foundation?
“So, when I paused from my labors and found Wagging the Moondoggie, I was primed to at least probe further.”
“Since then, I have raised the questions above and have yet to see one of them answered satisfactorily.”
I suspect this to be a bald-faced lie, given that not a single question you raised poses the least bit of difficulty for the authenticity of Apollo and that not a single question you raised hasn’t already been refuted and answered a millions times by other people on countless forums, comments sections, websites, or indeed on NASA’s own website. But I look forward to seeing how attempt to address my answers. Let’s see if you can stay on point, rather than meandering around and arriving at 9/11.
I notice that you avoided answering any of them, however.
The you must have some sort of weird dementia, because I answered literally every one of your questions. If you choose to play dumb to cling to your dogmas, that can’t be laid at my door. It will mean, however, that you ‘re going to look incredibly stupid and incredible dishonest. Your dishonesty is becoming quite pathetic and disgusting, quite frankly. It’s no wonder that you’ve never been permitted to work in the sciences.
The USA has never been able to build a successful ‘rocket engine’ reliable enough for the purposes of safe reliable space travel. They have secretly purchased RUSSIAN made ones. These facts can be verified by anyone interested enough …
“The USA has never been able to build a successful ‘rocket engine’ reliable enough for the purposes of safe reliable space travel.”
The Saturn V’s F1 engines would like to have a word with your ignorance.
Side issue – why did NASA retire Saturn V when its safety and performance records were close to 100% and they had nothing to replace it? It’s almost like an admission they no longer have the vision for further serious space exploration
Because Skylab had been retired, the Soviet-American “handshake in space had been accomplished”, and the Space Shuttle system was the new heavy launch vehicle. Also, it’s hard to maintain that NASA lacks the vision for serious space exploration when they are currently building a heavy launch vehicle to rival the Saturn V.
Edit: the Soviet-American “handshake in space” had been accomplished…
And you link is where, hotrod?
Here’s a video on the Saturn V rocket – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o39UlJlMce8
“The Challenger people are all still very much alive and kicking and in public view unlike most dead “crisis actors”.”
Wow, you really are this pathetic, aren’t you?
Fight nonsense, as a person who claims to be evidence-based you really are not acting like one. You must consult the evidence. I gave you the video link – you looked at the Russian one didn’t you, but shun this one because, a priori, it doesn’t fit into your paradigm of how the world works. Please look at the evidence.
“Please look at the evidence.” You serious, FG?! This is human ‘gonna-believe-what-I-wanna-believe (and I wanna-believe what my trust’n’comfort-figures have told me)’ psychology we’re dealing with here. Good luck with evidence promotion in such dissections; usually right at the back of the chop-logic ‘arguments’ queue.
You haven’t refuted a single thing I’ve said with any science. I’m still waiting, guys. You prefer to wallow in the trust’n’comfort narratives sold to you by corrupt taxi-driver “documentary film makers” who assure you that you’re “in the known”, because you see science and engineering as “out of touch”, or something. I guess actual engineers and scientists are too ignorant to talk anything other than nonsense, and should henceforth consult with anonymous trolls like you about orbital dynamics, life support systems and docking procedures on space craft. Hmmm?
The stupid “The Challenger people are still alive” is imbecilic not only from an empirical standpoint, but a logical one as well. It’s also deeply immoral and disgusting, and insulting to the families who lost their loved ones. You’re basically a slandering sociopath.
You do a fantastic job on the moon landings, Fight nonsense, but unfortunately you’re a victim of the taboos around death preventing you from being open to the truth … being a victim of the taboos around death is precisely what the power elite rely on to control is. People died! People died! How dare you! I’m happy to discuss if you can overcome your enslavement to the taboos around death, Fight nonsense, but there’s really nowhere to go when you refuse to consult the evidence. EVIDENCE IS KING!
I’ll look at you “evidence”.
Don’t bother to try to get nonsense to talk sense. S/he’s clearly not up to it; not on this matter, anyway. Just lean back and watch the hilarious comedy of his/her spittle-flecked, JimmyRandian attempt to prove that black is white, and 2+2=5 – just because s/he reelly, reelly wants them to be.
Laff? I got a ring-side seat! Come on nonsense: more foaming hysteria, to make us piss ourselves at your antics. Never let mere namby-pamby open-minded scepticism – the central principle of the classic scientific method – get in the way of a great foaming, super-gratifying prejudice-wank! Go nonsense, go! More foam! LOLOLOL! 🙂
Done by Dmitry Orlov, FG. See link in my post above.
Orlov’s attempt was pitiful. He made at least three sophomoric mistakes which should cause you to disown anything that comes out of his mouth. I picked out those mistakes by casually glancing at what he wrote. His method seems to be to fire off as many lies as possible, in the hope that his opponent will become tired and give up. Won’t work.
““It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”—Wernher von Braun, Conquest of the Moon.
“Of course, as we now know, Von Braun was wrong”
YES – and you don’t bother explaining WHY. The quote by von Braun that you cite is clearly talking about a rocket that doesn’t use staging. With staging, the size requirement of the launch vehicle dramatically declines because to get back to Earth, the astronauts won’t be using that same vehicle but a much smaller one that only has to get into orbit around the moon, join up with the command module to transfer the astronauts, and then have enough thrust to break from the moon’s gravitational pull and get drawn in by the Earth’s. I don’t know if you know this or not, but the Saturn V didn’t actually land on the moon, and nor was it supposed to. The launch mass of the Saturn V was about 3,000 tonnes, and most of that mass was discarded along the way. What returned to Earth was only a tiny portion of that initial mass. I mean, COME ON. This is absolutely basic stuff!
“Tt turned out to be easy to go to the moon and return, despite the obstacles in our way:”
Who said it was “easy”? Certainly, no one at NASA considered it to be easy.
“One of the astronauts killed in the Apollo 1 disaster — Gus Grissom, was so disenchanted with the progress they were making he hung a lemon off the Apollo lander. He felt they were so far behind that there was little chance of them making it in time to fulfil Kennedy’s promise.”
I’m not sure how one person’s feelings are supposed to preclude the work and assessments of hundreds of thousands of other people. I like how you credit his feelings as accurate (“This can’t be done on time”), but you don’t credit the technical assessments of actual engineers as accurate even to this day. It should also be mentioned that Grissom’s concerns served as input to the development program and the revamping of safety and other procedures. Engineers don’t just sit there and twiddle their thumbs, whatever you prejudices against them. They’re trained as problem solvers in order to get things done.
“In May 1968, Neil Armstrong was almost killed during failed testing of the Lunar lander. If NASA were unable to successfully land the craft on Earth during testing, what chance did they have to do it on the Moon?”
This is ridiculous because it happens to be FALSE. The lunar landing simulator had been flown and successfully landed HUNDREDS of times, including many times by Armstrong himself, so the claim that “NASA were unable to successfully land the craft on Earth during testing” is not just untrue, it’s the exact opposite of the truth. Armstrong lost control of it due a technical issue with the craft, not a lack of ability on his part to control it. Again, you’ve presented a meme, not an argument. Please use this resource to inform yourself (it includes a video showing Armstrong flying the craft without incident in 1969): https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/714-how-come-lm-simulator-was-so.html
“Happily, just over a year later, everything came together perfectly and on their very first attempt they successfully landed on the Moon without a hitch.”
Another falsehood. There were several hitches during Apollo 11, including a near abort during the descent. There continued to be hitches all throughout the Apollo program, including a near disaster during Apollo 13. But I suppose that was also “fake”.
“The Apollo landings were more than 45 years ago, yet it remains completely unprecedented as a technical achievement. Nobody has come anywhere near to replicating what was achieved. Not even the Russians, who were years ahead of the US in the space race, ever came close.”
And again, you don’t bother explaining WHY this might be. You ignore that the US was committed to the Apollo program in a way that the Soviets were not committed to their own manned lunar moonshot; you ignore that the US budget for Apollo was some ten times that of the Soviet equivalent; you ignore that no nation has seen it as politically expedient to spend tens of billions of dollars on a manned landing, and that the US stopped seeing it as expedient after waning public interest, the near disaster of Apollo 13, and the fact that they had already beaten the Soviets put a stop to further funding; you ignore the technical and political reasons for the failure of the Soviet manned moon shot; you ignore that Apollo was a truly national effort bringing together hundreds of thousands of specialists and experts, and that any similar program today would likewise need to be a national effort.
Good refutation, Fight nonsense. The staging included a shuttle to detach from the mothership (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) initiated by the engineer, John Houbolt, an idea which was initially met with great hostility. Fortunately, von Braun, initially against it himself, finally saw its necessity – you can just imagine how many others in charge might resent an upstart’s new idea and quash it. While von Braun is treated as a criminal Nazi (and maybe he was I really do not know) my gleanings (which I emphasize are just gleanings) suggest to me that it was his passion, charisma and ability to get everyone on board to the moon so to speak that had a lot to do with the success of the Apollo program.
Stages?
The moon lander, the penultimate stage, would have had to carry enough fuel to land and take off with healthy safety margins; enough oxygen to maintain two men for days with a safety margin; enough water, ditto; enough batteries to power all systems, ditto; two space suits and backpacks and at least one backup; a powerful engine; a moon rover and God knows what else.
Packed into 235 cubic feet (exterior measurements), weighing 36,200 pounds. And it all would have to work perfectly–including an in-space rendezvous–the first time, with no backup or Plan B.
The guys in it were test pilots who would never, in their wildest dreams take a bran new, untested aircraft into the wild blue yonder.Given the decades of effort, care and expertise it has taken to bring the V-22 Osprey to flightworthiness, I find the moon landing story improbable. The fact that we are still buying Russian rocket engines for their ‘reliability’ increases my skepticism.
I don’g ignore the fact that the US budget for Apollo was some ten times that of the Soviet equivalent. I consider it, and the number of people committed to it, irrelevant. After all, we committed far more money, men and materiel to our wars in the past 50 years and didn’t win one of them.
“The moon lander, the penultimate stage, would have had to carry enough fuel to land and take off with healthy safety margins;”
Which it did. The reason Armstrong was close to having to abort the descent was because he flew near a crater and boulder field and ha to overshoot the original designated landing zone. But I suppose this was also “faked.”
“enough oxygen to maintain two men for days with a safety margin; enough water, ditto; enough batteries to power all systems, ditto; two space suits and backpacks and at least one backup; a powerful engine; a moon rover and God knows what else.”
All satisfied. I love how you ignore that the moon rover, on the moon, only weighed 35 kg, that the moon lacks an atmosphere and so the lander would not be subject to aerodynamic forces, and that the moon’s gravity is one-sixth that of the Earth, dramatically decreasing the launch requirements compared to something launched from Earth’s surface.
“Packed into 235 cubic feet (exterior measurements), weighing 36,200 pounds. And it all would have to work perfectly–including an in-space rendezvous–the first time, with no backup or Plan B.”
So your personal incredulity and lack of knowledge about the actual engineering and technology of the lander should be our guide? We should just go with “It seems too light to have done the job. I know this because it doesn’t ‘feel’ right.”
The “it would have to work perfectly the first time, with no backup or Plan B” is a banal truism. Of course it had to work the first time. Weight constraints meant that they couldn’t keeping added stuff to it, which is why the testing program on Earth was so exhaustive and why they chose the most reliable components they could.
“The guys in it were test pilots who would never, in their wildest dreams take a bran new, untested aircraft into the wild blue yonder. Given the decades of effort, care and expertise it has taken to bring the V-22 Osprey to flightworthiness, I find the moon landing story improbable.”
You’re going to discount the countless hours of simulator training so that you can stick to your narrative that the moon landing was improbable? And why on Earth would you compare the V-22 Osprey to the LEMs? What’s the technical commonality?
“The fact that we are still buying Russian rocket engines for their ‘reliability’ increases my skepticism.”
It shouldn’t. The Russian rocket engines are superior because of their combination of reliability and higher efficiency due to their closed cycle design. It’s economics. The F1 engines were were not the most efficient design but the close-cycled design was considered by US engineers at the time to be too unreliable. The Soviets, however, were secretly mastering this technology.
“I don’g ignore the fact that the US budget for Apollo was some ten times that of the Soviet equivalent. I consider it, and the number of people committed to it, irrelevant. After all, we committed far more money, men and materiel to our wars in the past 50 years and didn’t win one of them.”
Again with the apples and oranges. But I suppose that’s par for the course for someone who thinks that 400,000 specialists and experts are capable only of talking nonsense.
Thank you for taking so much time to respond, but it would require more technical knowledge, real NASA specs, and scientific proofs (not exhaustive or detailed, but approximate and authoritative) to show that the feat was comfortably within the parameters of the possible.
Where and how, for example, did NASA install a top-of-the-line heating and cooling system (several of them, actually, because Moon daytime highs average +260° F and nights drop an average of -280° F, and it’s pretty much one or the other. If you’re in the sun, you’re going to be boiled alive, and if you’re out of the sun, you’re going to be flash frozen. Unless, as I say, you have immensely powerful A/Cs and heaters and, of course, more than enough electricity to power them round the clock. It would help if the Lander was heavily insulated in some manner, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
So it needs a minimal amount of room to sleep and otherwise take care of the basic necessities of life; plumbing and sewage system; a really good heating and cooling system, and a considerable supply of food, water and oxygen, the equipment to maintain the ship and complete the planned missions. An exhaustive supply of spare parts and a wide variety of tools are an absolute must. There are a lot of things that can go wrong with a spaceship and the only thing harder than finding a good mechanic here on Earth is finding one on the Moon.
Then there’s the testing equipment to conduct experiments. Some of it is quite bulky, so we’ll need to set aside some storage space for all of that. The moon rover and its batteries will require a great amount of space and, of course, added fuel to at least get them safely onto the surface, because they’re extremely heavy. If it was impossible to fit a dune buggy into the LEM, then Nasa is lying. If it was impossible to squeeze the dune buggy in along with enough batteries, oxygen and fuel to get back off of the “moon”, then Nasa is lying. If it is impossible to assemble a dune buggy wearing a space suit in extreme temperatures, then Nasa is lying. And so on.
The fuel to get the lander off the moon surface is considerable, too.
The work to move 1 kg from the moon surface to the point P where moon gravitation = earth gravitation is 1/24.45 of the work to move from the earth surface to P. The point P is 0.9*a from the earth center, at 384,000 km. Thus, to move 41,000 kg from the moon surface to P takes some 2000-3000 kg of fuel and from P it can even free fall to the earth, fuel is needed only for steering.
Do you get my point about probability? Even now that would be a fabulous achievement and it would be documented up the ass because we’re all much better scientifically educated than we were then.
But pulling that off with no backups or hiccups in 1969? C’mon.
“Where and how, for example, did NASA install a top-of-the-line heating and cooling system (several of them, actually, because Moon daytime highs average +260° F and nights drop an average of -280° F, and it’s pretty much one or the other.”
I guess you didn’t know that know they landed shortly after sunrise on that part of the moon, and that the temperature variation wasn’t this great? I guess you’re also ignorant of the thermal properties of vacuum and don’t know that what you’re referring to is SURFACE temperature, which would have to be radiated through direct contact with the landers and astronauts and over a substantial amount of time for them to experience these temperature extremes?
Here, educate yourself: “Wouldn’t the camera films have melted or frozen on the Moon? IN A NUTSHELL: No. Temperature extremes refer to the lunar surface, from which the films were insulated by vacuum. In any case they were not reached during the Apollo missions, which landed on the Moon shortly after the beginning of the two-week-long lunar day at the landing sites, when ground temperatures were far lower.”
https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/81-wouldnt-camera-films-have-melted-on.html
“If you’re in the sun, you’re going to be boiled alive, and if you’re out of the sun, you’re going to be flash frozen.”
So you’re saying that all space walks are fake?
“Unless, as I say, you have immensely powerful A/Cs and heaters and, of course, more than enough electricity to power them round the clock.”
Here, you stupidly ignore the thermal properties of the MATERIALS used so that you can pretend it’s all down to “A/C and heaters”.
“It would help if the Lander was heavily insulated in some manner, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.”
Said no actual engineer ever. But if you get your depictions of space technology from Hollywood films and children’s coloring books, it might indeed appear that they weren’t sufficiently insulated (BTW, are you implying that NASA spent billions to fake the landings, but cheaped out on the “look” of the landers? And that they still managed to trick the Soviets, despite this cheap forgery and despite that Soviet space technology was “way ahead” of the Americans?)
“So it needs a minimal amount of room to sleep and otherwise take care of the basic necessities of life; plumbing and sewage system; a really good heating and cooling system, and a considerable supply of food, water and oxygen, the equipment to maintain the ship and complete the planned missions. An exhaustive supply of spare parts and a wide variety of tools are an absolute must.”
More arguments from incredulity. These can be dispelled by taking a look at NASA’s own documentation, but of course, you won’t do that. I noticed that you didn’t bother even attempting to give some sort of quantitative estimate for what counts as “a considerable supply of food”. Care to elaborate? Refer to things like calories. Be precise.
“There are a lot of things that can go wrong with a spaceship and the only thing harder than finding a good mechanic here on Earth is finding one on the Moon”
You’re saying that space missions are all fake because something might go wrong mechanically?
“Then there’s the testing equipment to conduct experiments. Some of it is quite bulky, so we’ll need to set aside some storage space for all of that. The moon rover and its batteries will require a great amount of space and, of course, added fuel to at least get them safely onto the surface, because they’re extremely heavy.”
Where are your quantitative estimates that contradict and disprove that NASA’s were tenable?
“If it was impossible to fit a dune buggy into the LEM, then Nasa is lying.”
“Tiny”? I hope you know that the “dune buggy” was folded onto one of the side spaces of the LEM.
“If it was impossible to squeeze the dune buggy in along with enough batteries, oxygen and fuel to get back off of the “moon”, then Nasa is lying.”
Tell me the name of the imbecile who “informed” you that they had to “squeeze” the “dune buggy” “into” the LEM.
“If it is impossible to assemble a dune buggy wearing a space suit in extreme temperatures, then Nasa is lying. And so on.”
Except that they didn’t “assemble” it. FFS, LOL! They unfolded it. It was mounted on the OUTSIDE of the LEM.
“The fuel to get the lander off the moon surface is considerable, too.”
“Considerable”? What does that mean, exactly? How does it preclude that it was on board the LEM?
Sorry, buddy. You lose. You’re deploying a “shotgun” approach to truth: firing off salvos of “arguments” in the hope that some of the buckshot will hit the target. Can I ask: where do you primarily source your information? Your track record so far has been absolutely atrocious.
I often wonder how how they would have cooled these astronauts. The surface of the moon is above the boiling point of water. There is no question of exchanging heat with the atmosphere for there is no atmosphere. So refrigeration would not work. Then there is the gamma radiation to consider. The moon is the greatest emitter of gamma in the solar system. The comparatively small amount of gamma radiation (small in relation to the moon huge by normal standards) in the Fukushima reactor instantly destroys robot probes seeking the fuel rods. The moon would be instantly lethal to humans.
“I often wonder how how they would have cooled these astronauts.”
Ahh, so you HAVEN’T EVEN BOTHERED punching this into a Google search. If you had, you would have discovered, within seconds, that the astronaut’s suits used an elaborate system of cooling veins that pumped fluid over the astronaut’s bodies to absorb heat.
Oh, and by the way: are you saying that space walks are also fake? Because that would follow from your “skepticism” about being able to cool the Apollo astronauts. Astronauts that conduct extra-vehicular actives are exposed to the vacuum of space, whether in low Earth orbit or on the moon. So I guess that the Russia, the United States and now China are all in on this fakery.
“The surface of the moon is above the boiling point of water.”
Errr…the SURFACE of the moon gets that hot from absorption of infrared radiation. Something exposed to infrared radiation won’t immediately shoot up to that temperature. The over-boots worn as part of the space suits had thermal properties to deal with the heat from the surface.
“There is no question of exchanging heat with the atmosphere for there is no atmosphere. So refrigeration would not work.”
There’s no need to exchange heat with an atmosphere. or are you ACTUALLY saying that all space walks are fake?
From moonhoaxdebunked: “Isn’t it impossible to cool an astronaut in a vacuum?No, it isn’t: if it were, then present-day spacewalks would be impossible too. You just have to transfer the astronaut’s heat to the water reserve in their backpack and then discard the heated water. Exposing the water to the vacuum of space freezes it, removing even more heat from the astronaut’s suit.
https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/88-isnt-it-impossible-to-cool-astronaut.html
“Then there is the gamma radiation to consider. The moon is the greatest emitter of gamma in the solar system.”
As a whole. It doesn’t mean it has the highest localized gamma emissions.
“The comparatively small amount of gamma radiation (small in relation to the moon huge by normal standards) in the Fukushima reactor instantly destroys robot probes seeking the fuel rods. The moon would be instantly lethal to humans.”
Hmmm. “Interesting”. So you’re saying that the Soviet Lunokhod rovers were also faked because they successfully operated on the moon? Or that robotic or orbital probes sent by China, India, the Soviet Union, and the United States are all fake? Or that the various NASA and ESA probes are fake? Also, did you know that the gamma emission of the moon follows a time evolution, with periods of higher emission depending on the amount of radiation absorbed from the sun?
“Apollo sent 12 men 240,000 miles to the Moon and back, yet after the last mission in 1972, no other human being has ever travelled more than 400 miles above the surface of the Earth.”
Yes, and do you know about this thing called the Space Shuttle? Variants of it flew many times, carrying many people into low Earth orbit, and it’s now been decommissioned. The US currently has to rely on Russia to get its astronauts to the International Space Station. So I suppose that, using your logic, the Space Shuttle launches were also “fake”? If something is cancelled or decommissioned, it becomes “fake”. Hmmm…
And, again, you don’t bother providing a reason why the US might have stopped sending men to the moon. You ignore the political expediency of continuing to do so in a budgetary climate that involved the Vietnam War, the fact that the US had already beaten the Soviets, and the waning public interest for manned lunar exploration.
The obvious follow up question doesn’t even seem to occur to you: if the US faked the moon landings, why would they STOP faking them? Are you saying that they “lost the technology” to fake them? An even better question: why didn’t the Soviets, with their “superior” space program, fake the moon landings? According to you, it wold be much easier to fake them than to do them for real, so why didn’t the Soviets, who were “way ahead”, fake their own moon landings?
“Despite being orders of magnitude more complex and dangerous than anything else ever attempted before or since, and despite sending men 600 times further than would ever be achieved again, Apollo’s safety record is miraculous.”
The “600 times further than would ever be achieved again” is disingenuous, because most of that distance didn’t involve forward propulsion. And you ignore that people on the ISS have spent far more TIME in space than the Apollo crews by a very large margin. The total distance they’ve traversed is actually far greater than that achieved by Apollo and the scientific knowledge gleaned from these long stays in space are crucial to designing deep space missions to Mars. As for “orders of magnitude more complex”, this is imply something that you pulled out of your ass. You have no objective means to measure this complexity, let alone to say that it was “orders of magnitude more complex” than anything else. But even this should have given you a clue to answer your own question: if it’s super complex, as you state, then shouldn’t it also be super EXPENSIVE? And wouldn’t THAT be part of the reason why they wouldn’t keep going? Indeed, it was part of the reason, but either out of ignorance or dishonesty, you don’t mention this.
“All 12 men returned to Earth safely, whilst 14 astronauts died on the space shuttle program alone, despite never having travelled more than 200 miles above the Earth.”
Proving…absolutely nothing. You’re comparing apples and oranges here. The launch and re-entry phases of space flight have always been the most dangerous phases. Why is this a problem, exactly, for supposing that the moon landings happened? Being above the atmosphere actually removes many risks. All you’re doing is complaining that launch vehicles are inherently risky and being somehow mystified by that.
“NASA today admits it can’t go back to the Moon, citing the lethal effects of radiation.”
Nope, they “admit” no such thing. What they ACTUALLY said before it was twisted beyond recognition by moon landing deniers is that they are currently developing the Orion spacecraft and that its new packaging requirements will need to be tested in the same environment that the Apollo craft traveled in. You merely confirm your ignorance of engineering principles when you pretend that new technology doesn’t need to be tested.
“NASA administrator Dan Goldin gave an interview in 1994 where he admitted they would have to find a way to overcome the effects of cosmic radiation if man was ever to venture out of Earth orbit, despite the fact they had successfully done it 6 times 25 years earlier.”
This is reprehensibly dishonest, because it ignores that future missions beyond Earth orbit include missions to Mars, which will take months. That means travelling outside the protective shield of the Earth’s magnetic field and being exposed to cosmic radiation, which of course will need to be dealt with. The Apollo crews were in space for only a few days. That you can use the challenges posed by Martian missions to deny the moon landings is mind boggling.
“In 2005, NASA again said the radiation problem was a ‘showstopper’ for man ever going back to the Moon.”
Nope, they didn’t say anything of the sort. They said that it would be a showstopper if it can’t be dealt with using the new craft, but that this is part of the development program and that it has to be tested in the same environment as what Apollo was exposed to. Moon landing deniers just love to twist quotes out of context and to subvert their actual meaning.
“NASA achieved things 45 years ago using crude technology that we couldn’t do today,”
No one claims that they “can’t do it today”, only that they don’t currently have a manned lunar vehicle. Please learn the difference between these two things. “Don’t currently have” isn’t the same thing as “can’t develop”.
“one of the few examples in modern human history where mankind’s progress has retreated backwards.”
No, you’re thinking about the fictitious technology used to ‘fake” the moon landings. According to you, the last time they “faked” a moon walk was in 1972, and they haven’t been able to top this for over 45 years. Your logic, by the way, not mine.
Try this Dmitry Orlov piece for a sober – and not particularly judgemental – analysis of why the whole Moon landings programme seems exceedingly unlikely to have happened in reality as claimed by the current official meme. Dmitry promotes no final conclusion about whether there was fakery; just points out the virtually-conclusive extreme unlikeliness of the official story (plus the obvious bloody nonsense of the Skripal hoax, and the conclusive evidence that 11/9 was a false-flag; together with equally well-founded scepticism about the Boston Marathon official meme; terminal scepticism about ALL official memes being in sober fact the only sound standpoint…):
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2019/07/highly-unlikely-conspiracies.html
PS: I recommend highly Dmitry’s strategy for dealing with the realism-debunkers’ endless demands to provide alternative explanations to the questioned official memes, which speculative alternatives they can then tear apart in great scoffing-fests – frequently evidence and logic light, very noticeably.
Instead, stand pat on the rock-solid, sheer statistical unlikeliness of the official fairy tales, and insist unbudgingly that if the debunkers want real alternative explanations, then they can ferret them out for themselves. The sceptic’s job is only to point out what simply couldn’t have happened, using well-tested principles of physics and probability mathematics (things like the total, controlled-demolition-style collapses in the WTC of three steel-frame buildings designed to withstand much heavier stresses, these THREE TOTAL collapses being triggered – allegedly – by just two plane impacts. Yeah, right!).
This meticulous sticking to provable impossibilities sorts out a lot of popular damn-fool false memes decisively.
Rhisiart, I skimmed through Dmitry Orlov’s calculation that the moon landings were exceedingly unlikely to have happened and the very first claim he makes fails the test. The dust on the moon is “red”? Where did he get that?
Considerations of likelihood should only be taken into consideration when you don’t have a significant amount of purported evidence to deal with. There is loads and loads of purported evidence and I cannot see any great pokings of holes in it. While there might be a seeming anomaly here and there so very, very many alleged anomalies have been debunked. If they lost really important tapes, yes, we might wonder why that is but we still have all that purported evidence to deal with.
Do people seriously think that all the hours and hours of conversation by the astronauts and ground control are faked? How on earth would you fake that? While you can see in the context it’s very important, to fake it would seem unutterably boring and difficult to do. And if they did fake going to the moon why on earth would they go to all that trouble to fake it six times. That is so very, very much to fake. No need surely. Just do it the once.
I think very compelling evidence to prove we did go to the moon would be to have in one place all the improvements and changes made and why each time the astronauts went. I think it would be very difficult to convincingly invent all those improvements. Any sources for these, anyone, Fight nonsense? I know I’ve seen the odd one referred to but it would be good to see them all in one place.
One thing that continues to persuade me we went is the huge number of space enthusiasts who seem to be incredibly knowledgeable and have answers at their finger tips. These people are vastly different from the alleged debunkers of 9/11 whose arguments are utterly ridiculous and easy to poke holes in. 9/11 debunkers are not enthusiasts, they’re simply apologists for the power elite. A very different animal.
We also must keep in consideration that NASA does tell lies and very big ones, eg, the Challenger disaster and I think the evidence shows that Bill Kaysing was a CIA plant whose job was to steer all those inclined to disbelieve anything from authority into calling out the moon landings as a hoax in order to discredit any further claims they made against the government. I just looked at the clip where Buzz Aldrin, who was a Mason, punches moon hoaxer, Bart Sibrel. It’s a very, very unconvincing punch, the footage seems overly jumpy, and Bart Sibrel does not move, it just seems as if he keeps talking to him. I have a feeling that some of the astronauts but not all were in on pushing the moon hoax theory – but not necessarily to discredit the disbelievers-of-authority. One of the moon hoax debunkers, Phil Plait, paid homage to Bill Kaysing saying that he reignited his interest in the moon landings. Having to argue with the moon hoaxers has actually kept interest in the subject alive.
Oops! Take it back, it is a convincing punch. I guess I was going too far down the rabbit hole there. Still think that Bill Kaysing was a CIA agent though.
Straight off the bat, Orlov makes fraudulent claims about the thermal properties of vacuum, about the “fossilized wood” “given” by “NASA” (NASA didn’t give anyone fossilized wood; the “sample” in question was never presented by NASA), and that “none” of the Apollo astronauts swore on the Bible (several of them did). Just another fraud taking advantage of your gullibility. How boringly perfectible.
Please stop using ad hom as a lazy substitute for data. There must be masses of evidence you can assimilate to make your case. Insulting Orlov and others simply weakens your position
Don’t be too hard on the poor guy.
He’s getting very triggered.
And providing a lot of people with some innocent fun in the process.
On the “fossilized wood” that Orlov claims was presented by NASA astronauts:
https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/98-how-come-moon-rock-donated-to.html
On the “none of the astronauts swore on the Bible” claim:
“https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/94-how-come-lunar-astronauts-wont-face.html
On Orlov’s claims about temperature differences on the moon and what they would mean for the survivability of the astronauts and the functioning of equipment:
https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/88-isnt-it-impossible-to-cool-astronaut.html
https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/717-how-could-fragile-lm-withstand.html
https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/81-wouldnt-camera-films-have-melted-on.html
Using basic scientific principles and known laws of nature, refuting Orlov is child’s play. I can summarize what these articles I’m linking are saying if anyone wants me to.
Hmmm, I noticed that you didn’t actually refute anything I said. Curious. Are you implying that Godfree’s claims were all bunk and that he should look elsewhere (e.g. at Orlov’s piece) for the “real deal”?
“Try this Dmitry Orlov piece for a sober – and not particularly judgemental – analysis of why the whole Moon landings programme seems exceedingly unlikely to have happened in reality as claimed by the current official meme”
The “official meme” – backed and verified by all the world’s universities, scientific establishments and institutions, astronomers, aerospace engineers, and national space programs. I’m going to have to decline the offer to join the ranks of stupidly name YouTube fake account trolls and corrupt taxi-drivers and instead stick with the people whose job it is to design and build spaceships. Sorry, but really, you don’t get to denigrate a whole body of scientific knowledge as something akin to your mode of thinking (the bite-sized meme). The urge to project one’s failings may be strong, but it’s unwarranted here.
Can you give us an example, perhaps, of an argument made by Orlov that you find compelling? Just one will suffice for my demonstration. This will all be over soon.
Cheers, matey.
The reason the moon landings were faked is that the moon doesn’t actually exist. It is just a hologram. In fact, we are all holograms. This has been proven conclusively by the Quantum scientists.
Here’s a quote from Dmitri: “First, there are multiple signs of forgery. There are multiple indications that the official Lunar landing photographs were shot in a studio. In all of the photos lunar dust the wrong color: flat gray instead of reddish. Quite plausibly, the studio simulated the cratered lunar surface by filling it with Portland cement and throwing rocks and pebbles at it. Shadows don’t run parallel but converge to a point, indicating that the source of the illumination was a studio light rather than sunlight. The claim that the photos were shot on the Moon using a film camera is implausible because temperatures on the lunar surface are too cold for film to work at all in the shadow and hot enough to melt the film in sunlight with nothing in between. In any case, since the Moon lies outside the Van Allen belts, solar and interstellar radiation would have at least fogged, and probably ruined the film. Astronauts, who had cameras strapped to their chests and wore cumbersome pressurized gloves, couldn’t have plausibly framed, focused and exposed virtually all of the shots to produce perfect studio quality. In some official photos the shadows run in different directions because multiple studio lights had been used. The video of astronauts cavorting on the lunar surface appears to also have been shot in a studio on Earth and shown in slow motion. There is no crater under the lunar lander which would have been formed by the engine during descent. The dust under the lander is undisturbed except for footprints. Clearly, the lander was placed on the scene using a crane. In all of the photos the sky is completely black instead of being filled with brilliant stars, planets and galaxies.
Second, there are multiple signs of cover-up and guilty demeanor. All of the magnetic tapes from the Apollo missions have been destroyed along with most of the plans. In particular, blueprints of the lunar lander are nowhere to be found. The astronauts, when asked to swear on a Bible on camera that they have been to the moon, reacted rather strangely and refused. The lunar rocks that were supposedly retrieved from the Moon and given out as presents have turned out to be either missing, indistinguishable from asteroids that have been collected by Antarctic expeditions, or fossilized wood from the Nevada desert. Also, the Apollo missions being the crowning achievements of human space exploration, we would expect a huge deal to have been made of the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, which was just a few days ago, but nothing of the sort happened.”
“The claim that the photos were shot on the Moon using a film camera is implausible because temperatures on the lunar surface are too cold for film to work at all in the shadow and hot enough to melt the film in sunlight with nothing in between.”
Aaaaaaan BOOM: there goes his credibility. If this charlatan actually knew anything about the thermal properties of vacuum, he’d know that vacuum is a POOR CONDUCTOR of heat. The cameras would have to be in direct contact with the ground to be signification affected by temperature extremes. He seems not to know that they landed shortly after sunrise on that part of the moon, not nearly enough time for the surface to reach anywhere close to its maximum temperature.
“The astronauts, when asked to swear on a Bible on camera that they have been to the moon, reacted rather strangely and refused. ”
A pathetic, miserable lie, since multiple astronauts DID swear on the Bible. “reacted rather strangely” – yes, as would ANYONE if some imbecile shoved a Bible in their face and asked them to “swear on it”.
“The lunar rocks that were supposedly retrieved from the Moon and given out as presents have turned out to be either missing, indistinguishable from asteroids that have been collected by Antarctic expeditions, or fossilized wood from the Nevada desert.”
Pathetically wrong on all counts. What this disgusting LIAR doesn’t tell you is that the “fossilized wood” handed to the Dutch prime minister WASN’T given by NASA, and NASA never claimed that they gave it. Or are you saying that they spent billions to “fake” the landings, only to hand out samples of rock that would be easily shown to be cheap wood?
Please, PLEASE present something that isn’t fraudulent and riddled with sophomoric scientific errors. I’m actually begging you now.
To help preempt much of the inevitable ignorance purporting to “disprove” the moon landings, here are some retorts in advance:
– Reasons why NASA stopped going to the moon: They haven’t. There are NASA orbiters currently studying the moon. But it’s true that no humans have gone back since 1972. Why is this? The reasons are mundane and easily verified: 1) waning public interest, especially after Apollo 13’s near disaster. Missions planned beyond Apollo 17 (18, 19 & 20) were cancelled. NASA wanted to continue with these missions, but Congress and the White House did not; 2) the political expediency of continued manned lunar exploration was not what it has been in the 60s. The Soviets had been beaten, and many in the government questioned the utility of continuing to spend many billions on Apollo when there was pressure to use that money elsewhere. The costs of the Vietnam War made it difficult to justify indefinitely throwing more money at Apollo.
– Why didn’t the Soviet expose the “fake” Apollo missions? Because they had no reason to think they were fake. Moon landing deniers contradict one another on this point. Some claim that the Soviets were “tricked” (and yet random dipshits on YouTube are able to “crack” the “hoax of the 20th century”, apparently). Others claim that the Soviets were bribed with grain and favorable trading terms, whiles others claim that they feared an American nuclear response if they tried to go public with their knowledge (apparently, the US was willing to risk nuclear retaliation to protect the integrity of a fake space mission rather than just do it for real). Of course, no evidence exists that the Soviets were “tricked” or that they ever thought the missions were faked, for the simple reason that all the scientific evidence points to the missions being authentic. Soviet astronomers and technicians verified the position of the Apollo craft and could track them from Earth; Soviet geologists requested and received samples of lunar rock brought back by the Apollo crews (the Soviets themselves recovered some lunar regolith from one of their unmanned probes, and could verify the essential characteristics of lunar material); Soviet engineers could watch progress in the Saturn V and LEM development programs.
– No Soviet officials – whether in the USSR’s scientific, engineering, intelligence, or political establishments – have ever come forward after the collapse of the Soviet Union to claim that the Soviet state “knew” that the missions were “fake”. That’s odd, isn’t it? Even after the disintegration of Soviet state power and the flight of many of its brightest people to other countries (or these people selling themselves to the highest bidder to make their own ends meet), there have been no takers to expose the “greatest hoax of the 20th century”. That’s an unusually strong commitment to upholding American prestige.
– The logistics and organizational requirements of a conspiracy on this scale would make it prohibitively complex, unmanageable and prone to exposure: Many people watch too much TV and Hollywood films and imagine that a conspiracy on this scale could be overseen and guaranteed with a mere “handful of insiders” (none of which have ever come forward, incidentally). Actually, reality simply doesn’t work that way. The Apollo program hired some 400,000 people – engineers, technicians, scientists, mathematicians, and many chemical, materials, electronics and other specialists and experts – and some 2,000 companies. For the actual goal of the program to have been a hoax, it would require that most of these 400,000 people be tricked on a continuous basis about the reality of their roles. The claim that all these people could be “compartmentalized” and the secret thus kept also betrays a deep ignorance about how large-scale engineering projects work. Project managers who oversee the development and testing of particular systems and components still need to constantly consult with and collaborate with other team heads and departments, to make sure that all the components and systems work together as part of a cohesive, reliable common package. This is basic engineering 101. For the conspiracy to work, it would mean that all phases of the development program would need to progress in such a way that no realizations of the truth would occur among the countless employees involved in problem solving and testing; that no substantial inter-departmental communications take place; and that all suspicions by employees be seamlessly and continuously nipped in the bud so that they wouldn’t be conveyed to colleagues, journalists, foreign governments, or family and friends. In other words, a secret police force would need to be put in charge of the program to eliminate the possibility of leaks. There’s absolutely no evidence that such an organization ever existed. No one has come forward to claim they were part of it. And no one has come forward to claim that they suspected that their real task in the program was to be a dupe in a fake project.
– No, they haven’t “lost the technology”. Apollo was a truly national effort, bringing together vast resources on a project that was politically important at the time and that represented, for the government, a national priority. No such urgency persisted since that time and after it became apparent that the Soviets were not going to be able to achieve a similar feat. The Apollo technology is preserved in air and space museums around the United States; blueprints are preserved at the national archives; and the countless manuals and technical specifications are freely available on NASA’s own website. of course, moon landing deniers never ask themselves the obvious follow-up question: why did they stop FAKING the moon landings if they were indeed faked? Did they “lose the technology” to keep faking them? It’s true that the US doesn’t currently have an operational launch vehicle to get people to the moon, but this is hardly a surprise given that they stopped investing in it. They also decommissioned the Space Shuttle; does this therefore mean that the Space Shuttles missions were also faked? What moon landing deniers don’t seem to grasp is that one doesn’t simply copy and paste old technology if new, more reliable means can be had. Apollo was not a flawless undertaking, and new lunar manned missions would seek to ensure that its problems are not repeated. New technology means new packaging requirements, which means more testing and development. To say that Apollo is fake because they haven’t gone back is akin to saying that Ferrari builds fake engines because engines were already available during the time of the Model T Ford.
I don’t blame people for doubting this, though I’ve spoken to engineers who worked on the project.
People realise they have been lied to so often that a safe default position is to automatically disbelieve any official narrative.
Do that and you can’t go far wrong.
And don’t believe anything until it has been officially denied.
If a government agency or the MSM say it’s snowing at the North Pole, you shouldn’t accept that unless you’ve been there yourself to verify it.
If you lie to me a thousand times, it is reasonable and justifiable to assume you are doing the same on occasion No. 1,001.
And “a conspiracy on this sale would be complex, prone to exposure” etc.
Not necessarily. Let me give you 2 examples. I’ll ignore another obvious one, 9/11.
1. The atomic bomb project. This involved hundreds of thousands of people. New towns and new power stations and radically new fully automated factories were constructed to complete the project. But apart from a very tiny handful of people, the first anyone knew about its existence was in 1945 when there was a loud bang above a Japanese city.
2. The Enigma codebreaking project. This involved thousands of people from all walks of life, many of them of an eccentric and bohemian character. The world’s first computer was constructed to make it a possibility. At the end of the war, these people were sworn to secrecy and the computer, records and equipment were destroyed. The powers that be thought they might have to reconstruct the project for use against the USSR. Then 30 years later in the 1970s, it was decided to lift the veil of secrecy and recognise the work of those involved.
Until then, nobody knew anything about it. People like Montgomery could pose as military geniuses when for years they had been getting telegrams like, “Rommel has only got a dozen tanks left and he’s run out of petrol.”
I’m not saying it was a hoax.
But it pays to be sceptical.
“1. The atomic bomb project.”
This is a very poor example, because the goal of the project was not made public while the project was underway. People involved in it were told “Don’t talk about this to anyone. This is a secret program, not something for you to blab about to your local newspaper.”
Apollo, on the other hand, was a publicly acknowledged program with a publicly known goal, and was discussed, debated and scrutinized in public media.
“2. The Enigma codebreaking project.” Same thing.
You’ve only provided examples of concealment of programs, not of attempts at faking the goal of an entire program from the people most intimately involved in that program. There’s a vast difference between keeping a program’s existence under wraps form the public (keeping everyone involved quiet with relation to the outside world by telling them “Don’t discuss this with your wife”), and keeping the goal of that program secret from the people with the greatest amount of technical knowledge. Such a thing might be possible, but even then certainly not if that program is a publicly acknowledged program involving myriad interactions between private enterprise, the state sector, universities and academia, and international collaborations with foreign experts.
How about the military having units dedicated to deception?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Army
There’s many military examples of deception, and the key thing to remember was this was the cold war. It was about beating the commies. And we have been taught by America repeatedly that it _will_ lie, cheat steal and trick to achieve its aims.
Anthrax, bay of pigs, Kuwait etc etc etc
Apollo achieved its aim. Beating the Soviets
Yes, the military has units dedicated to deception. Where’s your evidence that they were even remotely involved with Apollo? You won’t be able to present any evidence because it doesn’t exist. But I’m sure you’ll be able to weave some story using circular logic to “prove” that this is what happened.
“Apollo achieved its aim. Beating the Soviets” That’s right, by going to the moon and having it verified by Soviet science.
They must have changed their minds…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html
That guy is a clown and an opportunist rat, not a scientist. He loves the resurgence of stupidity in American society, because it makes him feel that he can use it as a wedge to make the US less of a scientific and technological competitor to Russia. It’s very disgusting, though, partly because he’s dragging his own country through the mud and spitting on the legacy and competence of the Soviet space program by implying that Soviet scientists and engineers were TOO STUPID to be able to see through the “hoax”. And like the slave that you are, you lap it up.
Did he present any actual evidence that Apollo was fake Yeah, exactly: he didn’t. He doesn’t himself believe a word of this hoax garbage; (just like Putin doesn’t believe a word of the Christian Orthodox rhetoric he spouts); he just knows that people like you do and that he can use that as leverage
You know me this well? How?
Because the political prostitute and non-scientist official didn’t cite any facts or data, yet you saw fit to point to him as evidence that Russian science has “changed its mind” about Apollo.
Here at OffG we encourage people to present arguments based on data and not resort to ad hom and abuse. I’m sure you have ample facts at your disposal. They’ll be much more effective if you’re not also insulting people for taking a different view
No data was presented in the article he linked to. Nor was data presented by the opportunist official calling for an “investigation”. If anyone disputes, I invite them to challenge me on it. Otherwise, I ask them to bite their lip and swallow their pride like adults.
You just have more trust in the reliability of proven liars than I do.
Again with the stupid straw-man that it’s down to “trust”. You use this straw-man so that you can set up a false dichotomy: “either” believe anything the government tells you, or reject it all. You stupidly ignore that there’s another avenue: fact-checking. No need to “trust” NASA or the government. Your fake dichotomy is for the weak-minded and lazy. Or are you saying that the Soviets did that? They simply “trusted” their rivals and had no way of verifying things themselves? Hmmm, interesting, given that the moon landing denier are always bleating that the Soviets were “way ahead” of the US. They were “way ahead” but they chose to simply rely on “trust” rather than their human and technical resources?
Nice attempt, buddy. But this is science we’re talking about, not a drunken gathering of family an friends.
You are blatantly NOT discussing science. You have in fact cited almost zero science. You simply use the word as a weapon in your abusive and mostly fact-free tirades. Begin citing sources and data please, or the frequency and abusive nature of your comments will have you labeled a troll.
” You have in fact cited almost zero science. You simply use the word as a weapon in your abusive and mostly fact-free tirades.”
“Fact free”? “Zero science”? This is itself a fact-free assertion, and a most disingenuous and reprehensible one. Can you point to anything I’ve aid that deviates from verified empirical science? I challenged you to cite (with data and facts) why humans would venture into higher Earth orbit if not on route to the moon. You didn’t do so, but I certainly challenge you to. I also linked to sources expressing the views of established science on the topic of the moon landings in various posts of mine. And my opponents have been singularly incapable of defending their own claims other than through cavalier resort to fact-free assertions. Some have even slunk away from doing so altogether, and have resorted to simply skipping ahead to ad hominems, straw-man arguments and other nonsense.
“Begin citing sources and data please,”
The “source” cited by S R passer-By made no reference to any data whatsoever. If he can link to a source citing a political prostitute as “Evidence” for Russian science’s “changed mind” over the Apollo missions, then what’s the point of asking for a source other than as a cosmetic token?
“or the frequency and abusive nature of your comments will have you labeled a troll.”
Fair enough; I’ll desist from the abuse. But I would hope that the trolls who make fact-free assertions that fly in the face of all science and engineering will be served a similar warning
It’s not only possible, it has been done.
Those are just 2 examples.
There are many others.
That doesn’t mean The Moon was a hoax.
Just that people who express doubts and reservations should not automatically be treated with contempt.
“It’s not only possible, it has been done.
Those are just 2 examples.”
For the reasons I explained, these are poor examples.
“There are many others.”
Present them.
“That doesn’t mean The Moon was a hoax.
Just that people who express doubts and reservations should not automatically be treated with contempt.”
True, but that’s emphatically not what’s going on here. These “doubters’ are making sweeping, arrogant and mindless claims that defy all engineering and logistical sense, and smuggling in dogmato-lunatic garbage in place of scientific rigor. That’s the difference.
I have read that the Germans used a Polish manufacturer to make the Enigma coding machine and that the Poles made secretly made a copy of every component and worked out its function. So the code was already broken and the Polish copy captured in the breaking of the Maginot line during the first actions of the war. However Poles escaped to Britain with the secrets such that it was only a ‘secret’ to those below a certain level of privileged access.
Slightly similar story with the ‘top secret’ Norden bombsight.
Now how the various conflicting narratives operate at different levels is another thing – but narratives are also cover stories and that DOES come through the article above.
The idea that we are being lied to may also be the idea that we want to live a lie or persist in self-illusion for our OWN reasons or for reasons that are kept hidden from ourselves so as to mask over a realm of conflict so as to protect it behind a cover story, and protect us from its undoing or resolution – excepting token alliances and truce of ‘cover story’.
The presentation of the innocent victim as the basis of the call for vengeance is part of the mind that knows not what it does. That is, it believes its own thought determines reality as a cover story of self-justification for persisting in… its own thought or private agenda given priority in secret.
The nature of reality for human consciousness cannot be considered without recognising that we (whoever we are) MODEL or IMAGE our reality and then use that model to interact and manipulate through that reality as if IN our own thoughts, definitions, meanings and beliefs.
The conviction that truth is OUT THERE rather an implicately projective to an explicate EXPERIENCE is the result of WANTING it so.
The fundamental false flag is to set up trouble abroad to cover for or divert from trouble at home. The conflict is thus ‘protected’ by a ‘separation’.
Now it may be that our narratives are ‘code’ for what we do NOT want to know or OWN – and that this even this also is ‘already known’ to a realm of access ‘backstage’.
I cannot take away another’s story – or unfolding experience of who they are – and who they are not – nor is there any call to do so. (Attempt to do so generates insane entanglement within story as denied will of victim and victimiser).
But perhaps I can realign in a of waking to the script as a freedom to live its ‘other side’ as a movement of reintegrative recognition.
To ‘cast out’ has a double meaning and a projector is a beam of filtered light.
To see through a glass darkly or in modern terms through an algorithm of rules that serve the director of thought in theme and focus.
Truth already In Here or Inherence is a resonant recognition to a willing abidance.
The mind then follows – instead of splitting off in a mis-taken inheritance all by itself.
Freedom to follow and live our own expression must be the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them as a development of character and self responsibility. But the introduction of sin and guilt of uncorrectable error effectively locks off the script from revision, and damns the personae of that error to never ending re-enactment of the lie and the father of it in which death or unconsciousness is called on to save – and the world of such supply rises like a genie to the intensity of the wish.
That what we want matters is masked in seeming to want what we do not or hiding what we truly do because it reopens the pain of conflict in the heart. better then to displace and mitigate to a world made to cover over an ‘ancient hate’.
Reactive or habituated emotional investment distorts our capacity to think and see clearly. We become victims to our own and others story.
Human development? Is there not the interplay of seemingly opposing polarised forces in which we are invested and en-tranced. If the game is not worth the candle then its capacity to engage attention wanes to the desire for a more coherent story. desire is the vibration that aligns thought as purposeful fulfilment. Are we not collectively invested in NOT wanting to lose rather than wholly wanting to have and to be as What Is?
Perhaps our ‘reality experience’ of any moment is the level of access or ‘need to know’ basis. If we are not wholly willing to own and to know we will manifest filters or blocks or diversions that then generate a stepping stone path of unfolding experience – perhaps through an attempt to NOT know by defending what we think we know (or want true) against all odds and evidences. perhaps there is a baby in the bathwater – because the desire to be loved or powerful is not in itself illegitimate – but coercion and manipulation undermine the very qualities that a sense of loss or limit of – set us in act – and react.
My grandad was involved in the Enigma project. But he didn’t ever have a clue what it was all about or what he was working on.
So you admit: they didn’t tell him what it was about, and it was a secret program? Not the case with Apollo: a public program where the employees were all told what it was about, and where everyone worked consciously in that direction, cross-checking each other’s findings, constantly communicating between departments, and conducting extensive testing all the time to hone and refine the systems and sub-systems so that they could all work together as a common package. To suppose that Apollo was fake is to suppose that they threw all this human expertise at the project and built up all this technical knowledge about how to land people on the moon, but that the “final decision makers” STILL chose to “fake” it.
If they can keep these things secret, and the endless catalogue of Russiagate/ 9/11 style hoaxes are still touted as “established facts”, then they could fake a moon landing and cover it up. (Though that’s not to say they actually did.)
“If they can keep these things secret, and the endless catalogue of Russiagate/ 9/11 style hoaxes are still touted as “established facts”, then they could fake a moon landing and cover it up. ”
No, the scale is completely different. You ignore that 400,000 professionals worked on Apollo, and you ignore that not a single person has come forward to ever say they were part of an Apollo “hoax”. No evidence of a conspiratorial cabal managing the conspiracy has ever surfaced in any way, shape or form. So no, they couldn’t have covered it up – firstly, because it isn’t possible to trick EVERY SINGLE PROFESSIONAL involved in the program, and secondly because they would have to have achieved absolutely airtight control over leaks to the present day, requiring oversight and coordination by a veritable secret police organization. No such organization has ever been revealed, nor has the logistical signature of such an organization ever been revealed. Russiagate is yet another POOR comparison because it’s comparing apples to oranges – in this case, because of the difference in scale, complexity and potential sources of leaks. Russiagate has been exposed after only a few short years. I want oranges compared with oranges, not just fruit that can be vaguely passed off as oranges.
“Do that and you can’t go far wrong.” Well, of course you CAN, as moon landing denial amply demonstrates, so I don’t know where you’re getting this ridiculous notion from. When you dogmatically cling to “they HAVE to be lying about everything”, you’re going to start believing in some very kooky things. Of course, one doesn’t have to pay this price in order to stay vigilant against government lies. One can use fact-checking and verification. The choice isn’t between blindly believing whatever the government tells you and straight up rejecting everything they say, you know. There is an alternative, and that’s known as “science”.
“If a government agency or the MSM say it’s snowing at the North Pole, you shouldn’t accept that unless you’ve been there yourself to verify it.”
This is very silly and is the way that Flat Earthers argue. Of course, one doesn’t have to personally be somewhere to get a reasonable sense for how likely something is to have happened or for it to exist. One can use independent sources of data and information to form a picture that can either corroborate or call into question what the government is saying, perhaps even decisively. Common sense, logic and inference are also useful here. The irony is that dogmatic conspiracists themselves become the premier “believe whatever I say” types. Nearly every single time I’ve argued with a moon landing denier, the only thing they’ve provided by way of argument is a series of memes that they picked up from other moon landing deniers, and which they never bothered to fact-check or even attempt to verify in any way, shape or form. They violate the very things prescriptions that they themseves supposedly promote: “checking things out for yourself”. They simply cling to the dogma “the government has to be lying”, and interpret everything through that lens as though it’s some sort of axiom. Moon landing denial literally consists of a body of circulating memes, and terminates in accusations of “shill!” This is juvenile delinquency, not science.
“If you lie to me a thousand times, it is reasonable and justifiable to assume you are doing the same on occasion No. 1,001.”
No, it isn’t; you also need to check the facts to see whether the assumption of them lying is itself reasonable. Mindlessly assuming that they’re lying because they’ve lied before is logically stupid, especially if you add this new supposed instance to your list of “them lying” and then use THAT to assume that the next time they say something, they “must” also be lying. This snowball effect simply reinforces circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning. In fact, it short-circuits the possibility of scientific reasoning. Sure, be suspicious all you ant, but temper it with fact-checking so that you can ascertain whether your suspicions were actually founded. Don’t just phrase-monger about “government lies” as though that’s a “sure path” to truth.
I’m not sure why this is so hard for people to wrap their heads around. Have people just given up on the task of actually thinking things through? Is it really too hard and bothersome? Is science really this despised? I’m puzzled.
Mark, I doubt there’s a person on the planet who recognises more fakery done by government than I do but I don’t have any problem believing that the moon landings were real because I simply always judge by the evidence. When there is substantial evidence available which supports “real” and where any seeming contradictory evidence can easily be debunked or can be accepted as an unexplained anomaly because it doesn’t carry sufficient weight to contradict the massive weight of evidence supporting “real”, I choose “real”.
Also, in every event I recognise fakery, the fakery is always made obvious. The power elite are fair in that way – they make their fakery obvious. I see no evidence of fakery made obvious in the moon landings.
I’ve spoken to NASA engineers, great blokes, and you’re probably right.
But my main point stands.
I agree with you up to a point but then I think there are people who have the psychological profile of “disbelieve-everything-from-authority” (which includes my identical twin) and they disbelieve the moon landings on that basis although they believe that their arguments are perfectly sound and logical. You simply cannot argue them out of them. It’s amazing.
It’s not easy to see why believing the Challenger disaster was faked is inherently LESS perverse and MORE rational than believing Apollo was faked. The reverse is true actually. There’s obvious motive for faking the Apollo mission.
Not that we would seriously suggest either were faked. But at least one theory has recognisable human motives behind it.
This article shows bias.
In this speech to the United Nations, September 20, 1963, JFK shows clear interest in working cooperatively with Russia to go to the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huW46kh5-hg (2 minutes)
Also, in this commencement speech at American University, June 10, 1963
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fkKnfk4k40 (27 minutes)
Transcript: https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-university-19630610
It seems that Khrushchev was the one not interested in co-operating.
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Soviet-Union-publicly-accept-Kennedys-race-to-the-Moon-against-NASA-since-it-actually-kept-its-N1-Moon-rocket-classified-for-several-decades
What really pisses me off is contaminating the commemoration of the amazing achievement of the moon landings with a fake story about a moon dust experiment that “hitchhiked” to the moon. Utterly disgusting and shameful.
https://www.sciencealert.com/apollo-moon-dust-from-1966-to-2009
https://www.smh.com.au/national/sydney-moon-dust-experiment-on-board-apollo-11-20190715-p527ho.html
Off topic, Flaxgirl (I really wanted to post this on the Off-G Anthrax article but that seems to have been taken off line) but I just wanted to thank you for putting me in touch with that remarkable film “JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick”. Incidentally, your link to it seems dead but it can still be accessed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ObvK4NR_LI
Should that no longer work, I’m sure it can be accessed by just searching for the title.
A transcript can be found here:
https://lawyershtab.com/index.php/2018/12/08/jfk-to-9-11-everything-is-a-rich-mans-trick/
I appreciate your appreciation, George. As you can see, I generally get the opposite on the comments here and just about everywhere else despite the fact that I think that what I say is pretty straightforward and self-evident when you actually bother to consult the evidence and push aside your paradigms of how the world works.
My link does work but craftily YouTube makes it look as if it doesn’t. You simply have to click again. I think I might change my link to yours though, as people might think the link doesn’t work. Although the transcript isn’t a proper transcript and looks as if it’s been generated from the audio it’s still useful. Thanks for that.
How very interesting that the Anthrax attacks article has been pulled. Admin, if you read this can you let us know the reason.
What I got from the Conolly film is that the JFK assassination was such a farcically botched job (with its multiple shootings, primitive film tampering and escalating further assassinations) that it put the perpetrators on a steep learning curve where they released that even something as relatively simple as the shooting of a president was open to too many unpredictable variables. They also realised the vital importance of a compliant media who would be the ultimate safeguards of the desired story.
Apply this logic to 9/11 and you realise that the use of actual planes in New York would have been impossibly risky. There is no way you could guarantee a conveniently localised destruction. The only way you could do that is to have explosives in the buildings with no extraneous factors. Now most people in New York go about their business without looking up, skyscrapers being a mundane familiarity to them. The first indication they would have of something wrong would be the explosion from the first tower to be “hit”. And then all eyes would be on that tower when a blast comes from the second tower. In short, hardly anyone would have been watching the airspace around the towers.
Nevertheless some would of course see that there were no planes. But they would have no chance against the relentless 24 hour news barrage featuring the most spectacular film extravaganza of all time. Add to this that brilliant circulation of the “holographic projection” meme which sets up a straw man demonization of the no-plane idea and all is done.
While I have the utmost respect for the film and probably believed all of it at the time I watched it, I have learnt a few significant things since. One is that they tell us with deliberate clues what they’re up to and the other is that their propaganda can be targeted directly at truthers and be very counterintuitive. Because they know that truthers think they’re the guilty party anyway, they play on that knowledge. They lead us down various garden paths with all kinds of stories and a seeming “botching” might be completely deliberate. I think it’s entirely possible that the only person killed, at least at the time of the JFK assassination was JFK himself. Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t and I bet the good-looking policeman wasn’t body-switched either – but he may have been. Or maybe he was killed because he refused to be in on the conspiracy. Who the hell knows? No doubt all the mafia people were genuinely killed but then they’re mafia people – they always end up getting killed.
I am familiar with some of the methods of disinformation. Indeed – the film makes a very good point about how truth can be mixed with falsehood. This has three effects: to make the truth seem false, to make the falsehood seem true and finally to simply cause confusion leading to despair and a shrug of “Well – we’ll never know”.
For this reason – even a totally untrustworthy source can still have genuine information. Early after 9/11 one David Shayler (an “ex-intelligence” man – ho ho!) made a pretty good film attacking a BBC hit piece ridiculing 9/11 “conspiracy theories” – after which he turned round and declared himself to be the Son of God. Nice one! And all that perfectly reasonable argument for an inside job becomes tainted as “the view of a nut”.
Yes, as someone says, there is no ex!, there is no ex-CIA. Love that. I like the neat “make true seem false and false seem true” so that we end up with “we’ll never know”. We know that LHO did not assassinate JFK and they virtually tell us that in the rifle that they allegedly gave him to shoot him. Also, it seems Zapruder was an agent too so we can’t rely on his film. My feeling is that while in the film the explanation for the person who made the fatal shot is compelling I wonder if it’s actually much more prosaic than that. I need to watch the film again.
There’s wall-to-wall 9/11 controlled opposition. Wall-to-wall. The key truth to 9/11 is that death and injury were staged and how they’ve cleverly hidden this truth from truthers is to push – and I mean PUSH – controlled demolition in our faces and transform this seeming truth liability into a magical propaganda asset by combining this truth in a variety of ways with the lie of real death and injury, eg, the “loved ones” expressing belief in controlled demolition while lamenting the loss of their son or husband.
Key to understanding how the power elite control us is that they propagandise to us very much according to our profiles – these are ones I think I can identify:
* those who believe anything from authority (the power elite don’t have to worry about these people and feed them any old rubbish – I guess you could say I was in this category to a reasonable degree until I reached my 50s but that was only because the paradigm of how they control us had never been exposed to me)
* those who are reasonably skeptical
* those who, on principle, believe nothing from authority
* those who, regardless of any other influencing profile, are emotionally drawn to stories
* those who, regardless of any other influencing profile, will go a number of steps towards the truth and then fossilise in their belief – this is a bit like immigrants who will learn a certain amount of the new language and then plateau and go no further
I think that most of the people around me are the way I used to be. And there are two aspects to this:
First, there is a deep feeling of “Well, we’re OK. Life isn’t too bad. There’s a lot of stuff happening out there and it’s not good. And it may have a lot to do with what OUR government is doing. But we don’t really want to know about it. And if some troublesome protester insists on shoving stuff in our face, we’ll go along with what the authorities say just so we can get back to our beer and soap operas.”
Second, (and this is the weird one), a lot of people can make statements like “The media lies all the time” and “Our leaders are all a bunch of crooks” but these are just cynical sounding noises that the speakers don’t really take on board. I sometimes think that “Hollywood culture” has a lot to do with this. People are so used to seeing movies that they have a schizophrenic attitude towards the world as if to say, “Oh yes – stuff is happening …but not really!”
Yep. My mother who knows far more about history than I do and generally is fairly politically-minded doesn’t want a bar of the “fake news” that I try to tell her about. I emailed her a link to a story by the ABC about high-school students doing an Aboriginal performance getting laughed off stage with racist comments which didn’t add up in any shape or form. I simply asked her what she thought of it rather than push “fake news”. She said that it “didn’t add up” but that “no doubt there is an explanation.” Well, yes, there is a very obvious explanation – it’s fake. My mother used to be a teacher and if any student had submitted anything like that story she would have gone utterly ballistic with the red pen but she’s fine with this as there is no doubt some explanation or other but who knows what.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-09/nsw-government-investigates-after-students-laughed-off-stage/11291028
According to Antony Sutton, the British American economist, historian, professor, and writer, the race to the moon was phoney – which I think is really quite hilarious. Perhaps NASA was actually “leaking” US technology to the Russians to help create the fiction that there was a real race going on to justify continued funding.
http://www.rolfkenneth.no/NWO_review_Sutton_Soviet.html
The phoney “race” to the Moon:
“In the mid-sixties, any foolhardy person who insisted that the United States would be first on the moon because the Russians were technologically backward was dismissed as a dimwitted neanderthal. But at least two skilled observers with firsthand access to the Soviet program made a detailed case, one in 1958 and one in 1969. Lloyd Mallan wrote Russia and the Big Red Lie in 1958, after an almost unrestricted 14.000 mile trip through Russia to visit thirty-eight Soviet scientists. He took 6,000 photographs. It was Mallan who first drew attention to the Soviet practice of illustrating space-program press releases with photographs from the American trade and scientific press…
“Unfortunately, NASA and U.S. planners have a conflict of interest. If they publish what they know about the backwardness and dependency of the Soviet space program, it reduces the urgency in our program. This urgency is vital to get Congressional funds. Without transfers of technology the U.S. is in effect racing with itself, not a very appealing argument to place before Congress… The United States appears, in historical perspective, to have been almost desperate in its attempts to help the Soviets in space.”
“The Soviet economic problem in the mid-1950s was acute. The Soviet economy had shown good rates of growth, but this was due to the impetus given by Lend-Lease equipment and by war reparations. There were no signs of technical viability. Numerous industries were decades out of date with no indigenous progress on the horizon. The only solution was a massive program of acquiring complete plants and up-to-date technology in the West. Beginning in the late 1950s and continuing through to the 1980s, this program had to be disguised because of obvious military implications. One facet of the disguise was the space program. The usual stock of reasons for backwardness had run dry (the Civil War, the Revolution, intervention, warmongering capitalists) – even the damage done by the Nazis could only be spread so far. So two new elements made their appearance:
1. A space program — to get the Western world looking upwards and outwards, literally away from the Soviet Union and its internal problems.
2. Concurrent articles and press releases in the West on Soviet technical “achievements,” spotted particularly in Western trade journals and more naive newspapers, such as the NewYork Times.
“Even the NASA Space Shuttle has been copied. In 1984 U.S. intelligence sources reported that the Soviet Union is building a “carbon copy” of the Space Shuttle. Retired Lt. Colonel Thomas Krebs, former chief of the DIA space systems branch, reported: “We’ve seen the Soviet orbiter and it’s identical to ours”.
This take makes little sense. If NASA had to secretly throw the Soviets some help because the latter were “actually” behind, why is it that the Soviets were the ones who were ahead at the start?
I’m afraid I cannot answer that question, Fight nonsense, however, history shows they didn’t get anywhere near going to the moon while US astronauts landed there – 6 times.
This is an interesting 15 minute video showing why they failed – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6fjs_8Yx8
If it is true I think it is pretty funny.
That’s a good video. He has some other good stuff on the moon landings.
The Soviets starting out ahead may have been intended as a kind of “opening salvo” for the big race. The writer Stephen King has spoken about how traumatic the announcement of Soviet achievement was. (From what I recall, he said this was announced just before a cinema showing as a piece of “breaking news”). Perhaps the news was intended to be traumatic.
I’m not saying this “phoney start” is what definitely happened but it’s a possibility.
I wouldn’t be in the least surprised, George.
“The Soviets starting out ahead may have been intended as a kind of “opening salvo” for the big race.”
Sure, we can come up with all sorts of scenarios to make historical events fit whatever conspiratorial narrative we want. It doesn’t give those narratives any credence.
I freely admit that I am not a scientist, but there are several things about the alleged moon visits, the last of which was alleged to have occurred nearly 50 years ago, that puzzle me.
How did the astronauts overcome the problems created by the van Allen radiation belts?
If the technology existed 50 years ago (the date of the first alleged moon landing) why has it not been greatly advanced and utilised ever since?
Why is it that technologically more advanced nations than the US, such as China and Russia, never replicated the moon landings given their enormous propaganda value?
These and other questions are a genuine puzzle. I am genuinely interested in real scientific answers.
Because after it has been achieved, it really doesn’t have that great a propaganda value. The last of the Apollo missions involved stupid stunts like playing golf on the moon.
An unmanned trip to the moon is no great indicator of technological advancement, as India and China would have you believe, given that the US was doing infinitely more difficult manned missions half a century ago.
The million dollar ‘space pen’ is often cited as indicative of the supposed waste inherent in the Apollo program (the punchline being that the Soviets used a pencil). The space pen was developed because it really isn’t a good idea to have graphite dust from a pencil in an oxygen rich atmosphere, where there are electrical contacts that may arc. The Americans learned that the hard way.
“The million dollar ‘space pen’ is often cited as indicative of the supposed waste inherent in the Apollo program (the punchline being that the Soviets used a pencil). The space pen was developed because it really isn’t a good idea to have graphite dust from a pencil in an oxygen rich atmosphere, where there are electrical contacts that may arc. The Americans learned that the hard way.”
You’re billy bonkers for whichever line suggests that the western Establishment’s orifices always smell of roses, aren’t you? However, the development costs of the space pen (reportedly about a million dollars, but costing NASA a total of $2,400.00 up to and including their first purchase of a pre-priced production batch) compared to one fixed-price contract for space pencils (apparently unknown, but costing NASA a total of $4,382.50 up to and including their first purchase of a production batch), plus–in both cases–the unreported costs of NASA’s own “rigorous” pre-deployment testing procedures, are earthly matters entirely independent of the moon, gone to or not:
In other words, your defence of official orifices is, in the case of the cost of space pens versus space pencils, simply an evidence-free reflex.
James, here is an answer that ironically says that the astronauts were exposed to more radiation outside the Van Allen belts.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Apollo-go-through-with-the-Van-Allen-radiation-belts
I have an identical twin and we have argued and argued and argued to the point of insanity over the moon landings. I just watched Massimo Mazzucco’s “American Moon” which raises 40 seeming anomalies. Some of them I have to say strike me as puzzling such as the lack of delay in the dialogue between Houston and the astronauts on the moon, however, most of the anomalies I think are easily explained (often just with a simple Google search) and because of that I think the film is a bit shoddy.
What I find is that often a seeming anomaly actually supports the “real” over “faked” hypothesis better. For example, Mazzucco makes the point that when Mythbusters make a bootprint in dry sand with the claim it holds its shape just like the moon bootprints, the sand bootprint isn’t as nearly clearly defined as the one on the moon, indicating that moisture must be present and thus this seeming anomaly supports “fake”. What Mazzucco should have done was try to replicate the moon bootprints using moisture to make his case. The thing is even in a moist earth dust I don’t think you can get a bootprint to look the same. The bootprint is so absolutely clearly defined I just don’t think it can be replicated on earth. I think the moondust is of such a different nature to that on earth, prints will be innately different. Also, the way that the astronauts get covered in dust doesn’t fit the way you would get covered in dust on earth. There seems to be an electric charge (or something like that) that means that the dust got on their suits, regardless of lack of atmosphere. Surely, if they were faking the moon landings they would have ensured that dust didn’t go everywhere because that would, superficially, indicate that there was indeed an atmosphere present whipping up the dust.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2005RG000184
Whenever I want to judge which hypothesis fits best I try to keep all the evidence in mind. There is so much compelling evidence that we went that has never had holes poked in it that everything supposedly favouring “fake” always strikes me as simply anomalies where if we knew enough we could explain. There is simply no sense of a comprehensive case against the moon landings – just a number of seeming anomalies that do not work together to make a case.
A very interesting thing I find is that evidence indicates that the initial moon hoaxer, Bill Kaysing, (and no doubt this applies to others) was a CIA plant whose job was to persuade the people who belong to the “don’t-believe-anything-from-authority-on-principle” profile that we didn’t go to the moon. When people belonging to this profile (perhaps around 10% of the population) then recognise real hoaxes such as 9/11 (it was, in fact, a complete hoax rather than a crime involving murder) the Boy Who Cried Wolf effect is created. Conspiracy theorists! Wrong about moon landings, wrong about 9/11! Evidence of this is shown on my webpage Mind Control under the disbeliever-of-authority profile.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/mind-control.html
“Some of them I have to say strike me as puzzling such as the lack of delay in the dialogue between Houston and the astronauts on the moon”
THAT’S what the “documentary” clown is presenting as compelling evidence? The delay was edited out of a lot of the footage shown to TV audiences in order to help the flow. The actual footage contains the delays: https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/97-why-is-there-no-delay-in-apollo.html
No, in this case, Fight nonsense, it wasn’t where the delay had been edited out – he mentions that and excludes that. I had an example but I can’t find it now.
Some moon landing deniers claim that there should be a delay in audio but ignore that the phase of the flight that this audio pertains to is actually not near the moon but still close to the Earth. Might it be that?
The Italian version of Mazzucco’s film is on YT. At this point, https://youtu.be/IOVK1gAvo8A?t=5808, he gives an example from Apollo 15 where the Spacecraft Films version of the audio (supposedly no editing of timing) shows that the delay is too short between Houston and the moon (less than 2.6 s (1.3 there, 1.3 back).
However, he says, if you go to https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.trvsta4.html and download the audio snippet there (it’s at 146:21:26), the delay is a lot longer.
The first example is the one below. As you can see the delay is 7 seconds whereas in the Spacecraft Films audio it’s only 1.1 seconds.
146:25:41 Allen: Roger, Jim. Copy. And are you progressing towards Dune Crater now?
146:25:48 Irwin: Yes. Well, we’re following our tracks. We thought when we got up here just south of Dune, we’d probably head north-northeast.
Which audio snippet do I download from the NASA website? There are several.
The one at 146:21:26. Just to make clear I do not fear that this anomaly is going to bring the “real” moon landings hypothesis crashing to Area 51. 🙂
No, I mean what actual audio file do I download. Provide the link please. There are several MP3 audio files on the page.
The entire thing is not a hoax, but a COVERUP. Rather than admit that their navigation systems were completely out of wack and they’d disastrously overshot in the wrong direction, landing on Ganymede instead, they had no option to haul the whole thing back to the intended Presidential scale and lie in their teeth. The alternative was to come clean and be a laughing stock all over the Kremlin. I made some footage landing my DJI on a neighbour’s bowler hatchet and voila, the whole shabby incident was exposed for the COVERUP it always has been. See diagram below for PROOF:
O←—–→o
O←——————————————————–→O
Diagram 1: Lunar Schemozzle (radiation-adjusted chromatic scale)
“How did the astronauts overcome the problems created by the van Allen radiation belts?”
Hi James. Why not just inform yourself? The solution to this “puzzle” has long been readily available to anyone with an inclination to check. The Van Allen radiation belts can be traversed by going through the least active regions of them, and doing so for only a short period of time. For the amount of time that the astronauts were there, the materials used in the Apollo spacecraft were entirely adequate. Of course, prolonged stays in that region of space would pose more serious problems and hazards, but they were only in space for a few days. I’ve heard one estimate that the amount of exposure they received was equivalent to the amount that a worker in the nuclear industry would receive in a year. Also note that the type of radiation they were exposed to was primarily charged particles, not X-rays. Many people erroneously think that you would need “several feet of lead to block the radiation”. This is entirely fallacious. Lead, in that environment, would actually AMPLIFY X-ray exposure.
“If the technology existed 50 years ago (the date of the first alleged moon landing) why has it not been greatly advanced and utilised ever since?”
Because it hasn’t been politically expedient to do so, and no other country has attempted it due to the massive costs and commitment that would be involved (apart from the USSR’s ill-fated N1 program, which was more of a half-assed attempt anyway). A manned lunar program is a truly national effort. Some 400,000 people worked on the Apollo program, and it cost something like $150 billion in today’s money. Even the wealthiest nations will balk at that unless there is some clear, tangible reason for going.
“Why is it that technologically more advanced nations than the US, such as China and Russia, never replicated the moon landings given their enormous propaganda value?”
The Soviets tried but their launch vehicle kept exploding. This was partly because of the limitations of Soviet industrial capacity, which barred them from testing all the components independently (they instead tested the whole rocket as a single package and then tried to learn lessons by studying the wreckage and telemetry to tune the next iteration). After four failures, the Kremlin cut funding because they deemed it simply too expensive to continue (they had only committed about one tenth of the budget that the US did), especially since the US had already beaten them. Add to this the competing bureaucratic interests within the Soviet space program, which were a recipe for problems in a program that needed more cohesive and centralized management. The Chinese were embroiled in the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, and many of their scientists were purged or could not push forward with a proper space program (China only launched its first person into space relatively recently. They have, of course, now landed an unmanned probe on the moon, an important milestone for achieving a manned landing).
“These and other questions are a genuine puzzle.” They’re genuinely not a puzzle at all.
“I am genuinely interested in real scientific answers.” The answers aren’t scientific but political, economic and budgetary.
It’s not something that can be casually brushed off, as current assessments show:
Scientists are grappling with our biggest limitation in spaceflight: our own bodies
We’ve sent people to space for decades — but we’re only beginning to learn what that means for human health.
By Brian Resnick@[email protected] Updated Jul 18, 2019, 10:03am EDT
““Radiation doses accumulated by astronauts in interplanetary space would be several hundred times larger than the doses accumulated by humans over the same time period on Earth, and several times larger than the doses of astronauts and cosmonauts working on the International Space Station,” physicists working with the European Space Agency reported in 2018.”
““One day in space is equivalent to the radiation received on Earth for a whole year,” explains physicist Marco Durante, who studies cosmic radiation on Earth. Marco points out that most of the changes in the astronauts’ gene expression are believed to be a result of radiation exposure, according to the recent NASA’s Twins study. This research showed DNA damage in astronaut Scott Kelly compared to his identical twin and fellow astronaut Mark Kelly, who remained on Earth.
A second source of space radiation comes from unpredictable solar particle events that deliver high doses of radiation in a short period of time, leading to ‘radiation sickness’ unless protective measures are taken. “The real problem is the large uncertainty surrounding the risks. We don’t understand space radiation very well and the long-lasting effects are unknown,” explains Marco who is also part of an ESA team formed to investigate radiation.
Apparently, you don’t even read what you post. Note when he says: “interplanetary.” The moon missions were a few days long and were not interplanetary. Missions to Mars would expose astronauts to a lot more radiation than the Apollo astronauts were.
Note also that the scientists you cite consider the moon landing denying nonsense you’re peddling to be just that: nonsense. But you won’t listen to them when they talk about Apollo. You’ll only quote mine them for things that will seem to you to fit your narrative – but even that stuff refutes you on closer inspection.
“A second source of space radiation comes from unpredictable solar particle events that deliver high doses of radiation in a short period of time”
Yes, that was a risk taken by Apollo.If a solar flare had erupted, they would have died. What next? You’re going to tell me “Apollo didn’t happen because risks were involved”?
I am not a scientist either James O’Neil but I i hope I am an open and honest person who can challange my own opinions and follow logical and coherent arguments without resorting to ad-hominen attacks and riducule.
So I add the following link to the discussion. Jarrah White and his Moonfaker series is an escellent source of information should one be interested in challenging science with science.
Seriously, MrChops, Seriously? Jarrah White debunked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqy8Dmx3UlQ
It’s interesting. I researched 9/11 before I researched the moon landings and, from a few months in, whenever I saw the term “debunking” (unless it was in the case of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking the Debunkers) I’d wince. The term “debunking” came to have the same meaning as “complete bullshit” in my eyes. Having moved on to the moon hoaxing literature, the term has reversed its meaning.
I followed you link and spent some time considering the comments below the video. What a childish game this is of debunking the debunking of the debunkers debunkering. I simply questioned nonsenses assertion that the VAB argument had been won. I am sure that if both sides could agree on the data being used in the calculations an outcome could be achieved. Without it it will forever be a c are of my data is right and yours is wrong.
Or alternatively one could just go to moon settle it once and for all.
The thing is, MrChops, there’s loads of evidence saying we went to the moon so I think if we have to make a judgement why not put out of consideration items where no agreement can be reached and look at other items. No one, for example, has explained how all the audio between Houston and the moon was faked. “Acting” simply won’t wash.
Jarrah’s arguments about the VAB, like all else he talks about, are erroneous and easily disproved by established science. What scientific resources did you use to verify that he constitutes an “excellent source”? Certainly not any professional resources used by practicing physicists, astronomers, planetary scientists or geologists.
What arguments about the VAB do you find compelling?
“Or alternatively one could just go to moon settle it once and for all.”
You want them to waste billions of dollars just because you prefer not to fact-check?
Could have used the Trillions of dollars that went missing from the Pentagon. Oh wait it didn’t go missing – we just don’t have the evidence of where it went coz some ‘plane’ destroyed it on 9/11. How convenient- much like the Apollo film footage…….
You mean the Apollo film footage of which copies were made?
Try again, this time with facts rather than ego.
“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? / That’s not my department, says Wernher von Braun.”
Needs more bandwidth
All sorts of things that are now a feature of everyday life would not have been produced without the space programme. Mundane things like disposable nappies. Mobile phones and computers. There is a very long list of things that would not have been developed, certainly not in their present form.
A colossal mistake was made post 1945 in demonising the Soviet Union and moving to Cold War confrontation. The end of the war could have ushered in an era of unparalleled cooperation, peace and prosperity. Instead we had a nuclear confrontation and a succession of bloodbaths in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East and Africa.
Russia has never been a threat to western countries, going back to the 16th century when Elizabeth I established diplomatic relations with Ivan The Terrible. Not under the Romanovs, the Bolsheviks, or its current leadership. It has only ever responded to external threats. It is such a vast country that it has always been a status quo power, preoccupied with its many internal problems.
This was true under Stalin. He was concerned primarily with retaining his hold on power and developing the country economically. Whatever his internal record, he had no real interest in expanding communism or taking over other countries. He was concerned that if foreign communist parties became too powerful, they would pose a challenge to him as he lost control. So he instructed them to cooperate with other mainstream parties. He had no interest in taking over other countries because he wanted their mineral resources or agricultural land.
A lot of people in countries like Poland or Hungary would probably object to that assessment. But Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe was intended mainly to control the invasion route that had cost anything up to 70 million lives in three conflicts over one generation. Rumania alone had supplied one million troops for the 1941 invasion. Countries like the US or UK would have done far more in similar circumstances.
Shortly after the war, Stalin proposed that Germany should be reunited. It could hold elections and adopt whatever system it wished, almost certainly western capitalism. It could even have its own armed forces again. There was just one condition – it had to be neutral, like Austria. It could not join an anti Russian military alliance. This was rejected by the US and people like Adenauer. A great opportunity was lost.
An even more marvellous opportunity was lost post 1991. NATO expanded deep into the former Soviet Union in breach of all the promises that were made. Russia was comprehensively looted by Jew oligarchs acting as agents of western banksters. Russia was vilified and targeted for destruction and reduction to a colonial status. This may yet have far more disastrous consequences than anyone realises.
“All sorts of things that are now a feature of everyday life would not have been produced without the space programme. Mundane things like disposable nappies. Mobile phones and computers. There is a very long list of things that would not have been developed, certainly not in their present form.”
Mundane me! We should get there again a.s.a.p! Can’t wait for the next round: self-eating restaurants. Wearable septic tanks and everlasting one-time depilatories…
The most ridiculous hoax. A busted flush. A Disney fantasy. The interesting aspect is the collusion in this hoax of the governments and media of the world. Even the Russians chose not to debunk at the height of the Cold War. This really is strange on the face of it.
Refraktor, who would have believed the Russians if they had blown the lid off what is so obviously the hoaxing of a mission that cannot even be accomplished today? They would have been laughed at and ridiculed as sore losers. As is the case with 9/11, the biggest needno protection; they protect themselves.
Make that “The biggest lies need no protection…”
This is getting more bizarre by the minute. Keep it going, it’s compulsive reading. But how many reading here know that the Vietnam war was a CIA psyop with only a handful of real deaths and a marble wall full of fake ones? Or that that wall was made with the obelisk in 2001, recycled after production had finished? Or that the first versions of Agent Orange were made of clockwork? Get with the real programs people. World Wars I & II and the Korean War were all hoaxes to. Wake up!
“Refraktor, who would have believed the Russians if they had blown the lid off what is so obviously the hoaxing of a mission that cannot even be accomplished today?”
This is the pathetic refrain offered by some moon landing deniers. Yet it contradicts what other moon landing deniers claim: that the Soviets had to be “bribed” or “threatened” to ensure their silence (why would they have to be bribed or threatened if “no one would believe them”?). You stupidly ask “Who would have believed the Russians if they had blown the lid off an obvious hoax?” You’re literally too stupid to see that you just refuted the validity of your own question: you say that it was “obviously” a hoax, but that the Russians wouldn’t have been believed if they had blown the lid off of it. You can’t have it both ways. This also begs the question: why didn’t the Russians fake it if doing so was so “easy” and if the Russians were ahead of the US?
And, of course, you don’t answer the obvious follow-up question: why hasn’t a single former Soviet engineer, space administrator, intelligence official or Communist Party official come forward to reveal that the Soviets “knew” that it was a “hoax”?
You might also care to learn about the actual reasons why Apollo was terminated. In fact, if you’d actually read the article and paid attention, rather than devoted yourself only to mouthing off, you would have discovered one of those reasons in plain sight: temperamental public interest. According to your “logic”, I suppose that you also believe that the Space Shuttle was “fake”, because the US decommissioned it and can’t currently get its people into space without Russia.
It should also be mentioned that you imbeciles fail to answer the one question that should be absolutely obvious from the get go: why did the US stop FAKING the moon landings? They were “faked”, remember? Are you saying that they “lost the technology” to fake the moon landings?
“They would have been laughed at and ridiculed as sore losers.” A truly desperate, miserable excuse. The Soviets could easily have made a strong case that it was fake if it indeed was a hoax. Are you saying that no engineers outside the Soviet Union would have verified their findings? To date, no actual engineers believe the stupid “hoax” theory. Only corrupt taxi drivers and radio talk show hosts do, along with legions of stupidly named fake account trolls on YouTube. That’s it. You lying cretins have had decades to bring forward clear, tangible evidence that it’s fake; all you can manage is bleating cries of “why haven’t they gone back?” (showing only your ignorance about the nature of budgeting decisions, political expediency of large scale spending and waning public interest) and “where are the stars?” (showing your pathetic lack of basic scientific acumen) You’re seen as literally a joke in front of the world’s actual scientists and engineers, and always will.
“As is the case with 9/11, the biggest needno protection; they protect themselves.” Such excuses make you a laughing stock. They do nothing to protect you from the lack of scientific validity of your “theories”.
Fight nonsense, do you believe those who assert that 9/11 was a false flag, or inside job, are also imbeciles?
I believe the topic under consideration is the Apollo program and its missions. I’m sorry that you think “This conspiracy happened, so this other conspiracy also must have happened” is sound logic. Unless you can refute what I wrote, you’re holding an empty bag.
But to answer your specific question, I do indeed think that many people who assert that 9/11 was a false flag/inside ob are imbeciles, not because it would be beyond the capabilities or cynicism of the US government to do that, but because the reasons these people use are very often trash. For example, they keep repeating the meme “Oh, so you think that that the steel beams melted?” while not realizing that the beams would not have had to melt, but to have simply weakened in order of the buildings to collapse.
As for moon landing deniers, I believe them pretty much ALL to be imbeciles, at least the ones who aren’t in a teenage “rebel” phase and who are persistent and trenchant in their devotion to thinking that it was a hoax. I myself used to believe in the moon landing hoax theory, but I was 17 at the time. Fact-checking and verification have since become my friends. I would expect that a grown adult who believes in the hoax theory should still be capable of rectifying their ignorance and coming to understand, through a bit of investigation, the basics about the nature of space technology, project management, engineering, and so forth. Yes, the government lies, but this should never be used as a substitute for actual fact-checking to see whether the government is lying in a particular instance.
Fight nonsense, do you believe that 9/11 was a false flag, or inside job?
I’m curious: what’s with this attempt to derail the focus on Apollo? I hope you’re not concern-trolling. Note that I’m not saying that conspiracies don’t happen. I’m saying that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Apollo was a conspiracy. Just because lots of people believe in an erroneous conspiracy theory doesn’t mean that credibility should be attributed to it.
I’m curious; why don’t you answer a simple question: do you believe 9/11 was a false flag/inside job?
Because the purport of the question is to derail the discussion and to concern-troll. It doesn’t matter that it’s a simple question. If you have any real questions (that is, questions about Apollo), I’d be happy to answer them.
All I need to know about Apollo, I got from a movie called “American Moon,” so I don’t have any “real” questions for you. Please answer my question, do you believe 9/11 was an inside job/false flag? Your simple, yes or no answer will be the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned, so there’s no derailing of this discussion which itself, being on the authenticity of the Moon landings, is off the topic of the article.
“All I need to know about Apollo, I got from a movie called “American Moon,” so I don’t have any “real” questions for you.”
No, all you DECIDED you need to know about Apollo was what a fraudulent “documentary” that assured you of your biases and presuppositions soothingly told you. This is how cowards like you “inform” yourselves, and then you whine and stamp your feet when non-lunatics see you as a joke. I look forward to your refutation of a single thing I’ve said.
American Moon, Ken, is full of holes. It is shoddy. You do NOT consult a bunch of fashion photographers to discuss moon photographs. That is not good research when there are lunar experts who are much better able to discuss them. Mazzucco has not debunked loads of things.
The claim that the Mythbusters sand bootprint is not as clearly cut as the moon bootprint doesn’t prove that the bootprint was produced in a moist environment, only that Mythbusters’ debunking was lacking. I challenge anyone to produce an exact replica of the Apollo bootprints on earth – moist environment or not.
so many comments.
One might think you had an agenda.
Indeed. It’s fighting stupidity and ignorance. I don’t think it’s cool to let people wallow in it. Do you?
What’s your agenda in not using scientific arguments to refute anything I actually say?
BTW, I noticed that you didn’t refute anything I said. I look forward to you doing so. And yes, it will have to be more substantial than “So you think 9/11 truthers are imbeciles as well?”
“BTW, I noticed that you didn’t refute anything I said. I look forward to you doing so.“
Life is short. Spend as much time as you can arguing with strangers on the Internet.
Well, he wants to derail the discussion and make it about 9/11 – after he tossed around a bunch of claims about Apollo that he can’t back up. He doesn’t get to back out of this just because he’s doesn’t like that I’m pointing at his empty bag.
My preliminary hunch about ‘fight nonsense’ is that s/he has an obvious bee-in-the-bonnet about the high-profile but widely-questioned memes of today, such as the – already well-proven 11/9 false-flag, or the clearly somewhat iffy Moon-landings story. These are clearly deeply discomforting scepticisms to many – despite being well-justified. Hence FN’s torrent of scoffy chop-logic cluttering up this comment thread. But giving off such frantic-debunker vibes doesn’t make for persuasiveness in discussion… 🙂
“despite being well-justified” Where?
“Hence FN’s torrent of scoffy chop-logic cluttering up this comment thread.” Says the person who hasn’t refuted a single thing I’ve said, but still alludes to “well-justified skepticisms.” Mouthing platitudes about “frantic-debunker vibes” doesn’t negate that you’re holding an empty bag and that you guys are looking increasingly desperate. Try some actual science for a change. You might like it 🙂
Fight nonsense, 9/11 is easily exposed as an inside job … try making 10 points that favour “fire” over “controlled demolition” for the collapse of WTC-7. It cannot be done and, in fact, nor can a single point be made, as I have incontrovertibly proven. And in Graeme MacQueen’s words, “There is no room in the official story for controlled demolition.”
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
In fact, there is compelling evidence that the first person to call moon hoax, Bill Kaysing, was a CIA agent utilised to undermine disbelievers-on-principle-of-authority who swallow his nonsense but who recognise 9/11 for what it was. The effect created was of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Conspiracy theorists! Wrong about moon landings, wrong about 9/11!
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/mind-control.html
The key secret of 9/11 is that death and injury were staged – and no one has come up with a single point that favours “real” over “staged” on that aspect of 9/11 either.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html
Is this meant as satire or are you actually being serious? Alarm bells immediately rang in my head when I saw the inevitable “$5,000 challenge.” This money, of course, has no chance of ever being claimed regardless of whether someone meets the challenge, because the “challenge” exists simply as spectacle to “demonstrate” the confidence of the conspiracist. It’s like the money offered in fake “challenges” on creationist websites to “provide a single proof of evolution.” The disgusting insinuation that the injuries and deaths were faked is really a dedicated level of low-life desperation among conspiracists and is akin to spitting in the faces of the families who lost loved ones. Particularly vile is how you help yourselves to photos of people in distress and then adjudicate yourselves a false “expertise” that allows you to judge the authenticity of the photos and what they “reveal”. Ugh, it actually makes me want to throw up.
I would also point out that your claim that the government would rather fake the deaths instead of just killing these people for real is itself incredibly stupid on logical grounds. You’re saying that the government would rather leave thousands of loose ends open, each a point for potential exposure of the true nature of the crime, rather than just kill these people and say that it was a terrorists who did it. This actually makes logistical sense to you? Pathetic, really. The desperation of a lot of 9/11 “truthers” to cling to their dogma is despicable and inhuman. There was no need for you to dig yourself into this hole. You could have just stuck to the “they killed 3,000 people and said that it was Islamist terrorists.” Instead, you had to scratch at it like a festering wound and make things harder for yourself. Why the fuck would you do that?
Fight nonsense, you obviously haven’t looked at the evidence I present, have you? Not a completely evidence-based person are you then? You must always consult the evidence before arguing with your “logical grounds”.
There are very good logical grounds for not killing the people, Fight nonsense. Very good. The biggest one is, of course, all the loved ones of the 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured people, not to mention the 6,000 injured themselves. That’s a lot of people. People swallow propaganda, if reluctantly, from the government under normal circumstances but when a loved one dies they transform into a super sleuth who will stop at nothing to get truth and justice, especially when the evidence of controlled demolition is so obvious. The government doesn’t want thousands of loved ones and injured marching on the Capitol, who will also be persuading all the other citizens of the truth of 9/11. They don’t want that at all. No, they like to control everything when they conduct their operations and loved ones of 3,000 murdered and 6,000 injured by the government plus the injured themselves don’t fit “controlled situation”. When they conduct a psyop they’re faithful to the term – they use their very, very clever psychological techniques to persuade us … of just about anything (even man going to the moon – just kidding!).
Can I suggest you actually consult the evidence before making an argument. Please consult the evidence. Forget about the $5,000 challenge that has misdirected your thoughts and look at the 10 points I present that favour real death and injury over staged. Please don’t make me paste them into a comment.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html
Not to worry, I will trawl through your website. I love punishment.
Just consider, Fight evidence. Say it really were 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters who cleverly hijacked four airliners, navigated them through the best defended airspace on earth, to crash them into two 110-storey skyscrapers bringing them crashing to the ground in about 12 seconds each which in turn caused the collapse in 6.5 seconds of a 47-storey skyscraper, plus navigated a plane in a 330 manoeuvre into Defence HQ.
Let’s just say that really happened.
Don’t you think the loved ones of the 3,000 who tragically died and the 6,000 injured not to mention the 6,000 themselves would be a little upset about it? Don’t you think that rather than simply swallow it as most of the other citizenry has, don’t you think that they might be demanding a few answers as to why their country’s multi-trillion dollar defense system failed so utterly spectacularly on that fateful day. What? They’re paying they’re hard-earned taxes for that kind of failure? For that kind of inexplicable failure they’re just going to swallow the death of a loved one. I don’t think they’d just swallow it, do you? But where are all the loved ones and injured making a noise? Where are they all? Wake up, Fight evidence. Wake up!
“Wake up!” is another dead giveaway that you’re pushing nonsense.
“The disgusting insinuation that the injuries and deaths were faked…”
The old moral outrage that automatically presupposes the very matter that is being disputed. A bit like fundamentalist Christians saying, “You better believe in God otherwise you’ll go to Hell!”
… I should say disbelievers of authority who partly recognise 9/11 for what it was. It is only a small percentage of truthers who recognise that death and injury were staged and I’ve found that people who tend to disbelieve authorities and have a very low opinion of them are not so eager to embrace the staged death and injury aspect. It’s as if they want to believe the evil US government killed all those poor people. To me, it doesn’t make the govt less or more evil whichever way they did it but it certainly makes more sense for them not to kill people for real and it is obvious from other events that it is not part of their MO. People call 9/11 a psyop but, especially those who believe the planes were real, think the psyop part was really quite miniscule. The only thing that makes sense in a psyop is to do what you want for real and fake the rest – unless you simply can’t fake it – and it is so very, very obvious that they could fake absolutely everything about 9/11 and even push their fakery in our faces.
If they’re capable of hoaxes such as Iraqi WMD, Iran’s non existent nuclear programme, Syria Gas Attack hoaxes, Russiagate, Skripal, USS Liberty, Gladio, and a hundred other examples you could quote, why not this?
“Everybody knows”, “it is an established fact” that all the above things are true. “This is undeniable.”
“If they’re capable of hoaxes such as Iraqi WMD, Iran’s non existent nuclear programme, Syria Gas Attack hoaxes, Russiagate, Skripal, USS Liberty, Gladio, and a hundred other examples you could quote, why not this?”
Because each of those examples constitute only relatively small-scale hoaxes involving only a relative handful of people. To pull off a fake moon landing, you would need to literally trick hundreds of thousands of specialists and experts for years on end – specialists and experts intimately and inextricably involved in the very project whose goal is meant to be a “hoax”. This presents formidable logistical and organizational challenges that cannot be casually waved away because Bush lied about Iraq’s WMD. Also note that things like Iraq and Syria’s WMD culminate, at most with “Oh well, we believed that THEY were doing this, but we were wrong. My bad.” With the moon landing, the exposure would come in the form of “WE faked this, and cheated the entire nation into believing us. We’re pure frauds.” You’re saying that they would risk this and destroy the reputation of the US at the height of the Cold War, instead of just doing it for real and not risking that exposure.
““Everybody knows”, “it is an established fact” that all the above things are true. “This is undeniable.””
Except that no one has ever presented tangible, credible, clear evidence that the moon landing was a hoax – and that includes the United State’s enemies during the Cold War. Only memes and falsehoods have been presented, most of which can be refuted after 5 minutes on Google, and the rest after 15 minutes on Google. Who’s “everyone”, anyway? YouTube trolls with stupidly named fake accounts? “Undeniable” to them? Yes, let’s defer to those guys on matters of space engineering and project development, and let’s ignore science, engineering, history and logic. Let’s also ignore fact-checking.
I think there is sufficient evidence to allow one to reasonably question the Apollo narrative. Honestly, your sweeping statements and ad hominums really don’t strengthen your case, rather they look shrill and rather desperate.
Please stop appealing to consensus to defend things.
Does it bother you that you use exactly the same tactics that people use to defend 911 official narratives et al, including endless sneering and smearing. Oh stop it!
I often think Jarrah White is an eccentric but honest young man, seeking the truth. I think he’s a great example of an independent but very knowledgeable Apollo doubter. He’s just qualified as an astrophysicist. Here is his website that spells out his position very clearly in his FAQs, and backs this up with hundreds of hours of research vids, testing the evidence and numbers supplied by NASA.
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
I’d love to know what you think.
“I think there is sufficient evidence to allow one to reasonably question the Apollo narrative. Honestly, your sweeping statements and ad hominums really don’t strengthen your case, rather they look shrill and rather desperate.”
Then why not actually address my actual points instead of emoting about my tone? So far, all you guys have managed is the latter.
“I often think Jarrah White is an eccentric but honest young man, seeking the truth. I think he’s a great example of an independent but very knowledgeable Apollo doubter.”
Ahh, but he ISN’T, though. Far from “speaking the truth” (and how would YOU know? Did you fact-check his claims? Or did you just blindly believe them?), he makes ENDLESS – and I do mean ENDLESS – scientific errors in his claims, and often very sophomoric ones. His claims are replete with all kinds of logical fallacies, including fallacies of composition, fallacies of omission, Red Herrings, and poisoning of the well. Here’s a series systematically debunking pretty much everything he says (the series represents the official scientific position on Apollo):
I particularity draw your attention to Phil’s take-down of Jarrah’s claims about von Braun’s trip to Antarctica.
If you’re getting your science from Jarrah, then it’s no wonder you’re under so many illusions about Apollo. You guys have a sunken-costs vibe about you. You cling to people like Jarrah because he tells you what you want to hear, but when it comes to actually defending your suppositions, you fall flat on your faces. and can manage only cries of “shill”.
You’re right, I wouldn’t need to waste any time pointing out the flaw in your debating technique if you could reign in some of your frustration.
Now, I’ve been following Jarrah for some years and I happen to be familiar with this exchange. Jarrah actually posted rebuttals to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D1HyWaVwfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvkneMYvv1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZzmvpU8ec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yVe_a4dR7I
Honestly, if you feel that Begg’s rather sneering and sometimes dishonest attempt at a debunk is suitably representative of your case then this explains a few things.
I know, why don’t you post Begg’s rebuttal to Jarrah’s rebuttal, and we’ll vicariously dual it out this way?
It’s the special pleading that gets me…. how much benefit of the doubt is a corrupt government’s archaic space program permitted? Is it, in fact, an infinite amount?
It’s clearly more about choosing what to believe with you, while hysterically accusing others of doing just this.
The classic approach of someone processing denial.
What arguments of White’s do you find particularly compelling? He makes so many sophomoric mistakes, it’s hard to keep up.
Fight Nonsense, I started a new thread to continue this conversation (above ^^^^) as it’s getting very skinny down here!!!
Thanks.
His rebuttals, like everything else he says, are fraudulent. But perhaps you’d like to address particular claims he makes, to see whether they stand up to scientific scrutiny?
Webb not Begg! Begg writes about Jack the Ripper 🙂
White deals with Webb’s critiques at some length in his series of videos here:
No, White just lies constantly and gets everything wrong there as well, like he does everywhere else. The dude’s a joke.
So you use straw man arguments to refute the irrefutable science that proves the Three Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives, just as you use straw man arguments – peppered with abuse – to try to close down the clearly open question of what the Apollo program really was
Blah blah blah, screeches the unrepentant liar who tries to sell people his wares about “Apollo and its clearly open questions.” You’re like a fascist who accuses other people of being “the real fascists”.
You seem to have your “k”s where your “c”s should be.
“The most ridiculous hoax. ” Aaaaaaaand the inevitable stupidity and miserly ignorance begins, with every imbecile rushing to offer his “opinion” on the most well scrutinized and thoroughly documented space mission in history. But if “Refraktor” thinks it was a hoax, well then, who are all the world’s actual scientists and engineers to say otherwise?
“A Disney fantasy.” This is literally how this imbecile thinks the world works. That’s simply staggering. The author of this article is correct: the greatest distance still to be traveled is within us.
“The interesting aspect is the collusion in this hoax of the governments and media of the world.” Refraktor can demonstrate no “collusion”, of course, so he has to argue by declaration. If there is no evidence that there was collusion, then this is to be seen as merely more evidence that there was such collusion. He stupidly ignores that the entire motivation for the Apollo program was to one-up the Soviet Union, and that the Soviets would have reveled in the opportunity to deny the US this massive propaganda coup. Instead, the Soviets simply acquiesced this victory to their enemies, and that was that.
“Even the Russians chose not to debunk at the height of the Cold War. This really is strange on the face of it.”
Such things are indeed “strange” if one believes in imbecilic hoax theories. Scientific parsimony is alien to these dogmatic lunatics.
BTW, “Refraktor”: perhaps you’d like to explain to us why not a single former Soviet engineer has come forward to state that the Soviets government “knew” that Apollo was a “hoax”. You only talk about the “height of the Cold War”; why not afterwards when things cooled down and the Soviet Union collapsed?
What; keyboard warrior? Ok ducky the moon is the largest emitter of gamma in the solar system. This gamma would prove instantly lethal to humans as well as electronic devices. The surface of the moon is at above the boiling point of water. With no atmosphere with which to exchange heat there is no possible way of cooling the irradiated corpses both of these astronauts. Then there is the matter of slowing the Lem from orbital velocity before making a soft landing without adequate fuel and then repeating the stunt in reverse. I could go on indefinitely but there would be little point. I don’t think it was a hoax I know so because I am an imbecile.
“This gamma would prove instantly lethal to humans as well as electronic devices.”
You’re saying that all the probes and robots sent to the moon by various countries and space agencies are fake because many of them are reputed to have worked and sent back photos, measurements, and samples?
“The surface of the moon is at above the boiling point of water. ”
That’s right: the SURFACE temperature. Vacuum is a very poor conductor of heat. For the surface temperature to be transferred to the astronauts, it would have to be in direct contact with the astronauts for a substantial amount of time given the materials used by the space suits (such as those used in the over-boots). Ironic that you bring up atmosphere in one of your other points. Here, education yourself:
“Wouldn’t the camera films have melted or frozen on the Moon? IN A NUTSHELL: No. Temperature extremes refer to the lunar surface, from which the films were insulated by vacuum. In any case they were not reached during the Apollo missions, which landed on the Moon shortly after the beginning of the two-week-long lunar day at the landing sites, when ground temperatures were far lower. The films were also a heat-resistant type used for high-altitude reconnaissance and the cameras were treated to reflect the heat from direct exposure to the Sun, which is comparable with the heat from sunlight on a mountaintop on Earth.” https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/81-wouldnt-camera-films-have-melted-on.html
“With no atmosphere with which to exchange heat there is no possible way of cooling the irradiated corpses both of these astronauts.”
Tell that to all the astronauts and cosmonauts who have conducted many successful space walks in the vacuum of space while facing the sun. Here, educate yourself:
“Isn’t it impossible to cool an astronaut in a vacuum? IN A NUTSHELL: No, it isn’t: if it were, then present-day spacewalks would be impossible too. You just have to transfer the astronaut’s heat to the water reserve in their backpack and then discard the heated water. Exposing the water to the vacuum of space freezes it, removing even more heat from the astronaut’s suit.” https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/88-isnt-it-impossible-to-cool-astronaut.html
If you can’t even get the very bare basics right, why do you bother trying?
Is this a flaxfemme psyop? When it comes to “Fight nonsense” and “Fight nonsense” which is the real poster and which is the CIA mass-confusionary asset?
It was a typo. Are you trying to excuse the fact that you can’t refute anything I’ve actually said? I can’t even imagine having to resort to something so embarrassing and self-incriminating. But you be you, I guess.
Yeah I thought I’d lost the comment but I posted it. Camera film is known to be destroyed by cosmic radiation. There’s no getting away from this. Really there isn’t. I don’t believe they have the technology for a soft landing on an airless world. They didn’t have it in the 1960s.
Moon temperature is about 120 degrees Celsius. Where does this temperature come from? From the Sun beating down just as it would beat down on the astronauts. Water wouldn’t freeze as any vacuum flask will tell you. I have a very old a