458

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]
avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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?

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. 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.

Getting moon landing deniers and other conspiracy-minded evaders to acknowledge materialized facts…

Please, materialise these facts!!

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 …”

This video gets the math right

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!!

It doesn’t matter at all, in and of itself, how detailed something is. The Bible is detailed, after all…

Pure waffle and speculation (and a dose of unintentional irony). Really, I expected better of you. That is a double standard right there.

Van Allen, who worked closely as a consultant with NASA…,

…and who therefore isn’t impartial…

…didn’t consider these “maxed out Geiger readings” to be an actual problem –

Except he did when he first published them.

[Jarrah] mistakenly assumes that the electrons are only coming head on).”

I don’t know WHAT you mean. Sources?

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…”

Unless you can point to a source, you can’t possibly tell me what Armstrong meant. This is more speculation and zero actual science.

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.

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. It’s not inconceivable. Large budget movies do this all the time. It’s notoriously difficult to stay on schedule and things get missed.

The disturbance beneath the LEM is perfectly evident…

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.

…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, 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!

I don’t think so, my friend. [Jarrah has] made too many false claims for me to take him at all seriously at this point.”

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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?

mark
mark

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.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

Fight Nonsense, continuing our conversation from below, regarding Jarrah White, Phil Webb and their research about the Apollo moon missions…

[Jarrah’s] rebuttals, like everything else he says, are fraudulent.

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!

But perhaps you’d like to address particular claims he makes, to see whether they stand up to scientific scrutiny?

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.

What arguments of White’s do you find particularly compelling?

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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?”

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

I posted Webb’s response videos…

…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?

…because you plastered Jarrah’s videos on this comment forum and made a bunch of sweeping claims about their scientific quality…

If you mean I linked to his website FAQ and recommended it, then yes I did that.

a video by itself isn’t an argument; it’s a bunch of arguments.

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.

So yeah, be specific rather than vague and evasive.

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.

But then, what happens if I can debunk one of those claims?

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)…

I particularity draw your attention to Phil’s take-down of Jarrah’s claims about von Braun’s trip to Antarctica.

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!

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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:

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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?

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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:

During the local summer of 1966–67, von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him and several other members of top NASA management.[91] The goal of the field trip was to determine whether the experience gained by U.S. scientific and technological community during the exploration of Antarctic wastelands would be useful for the crewed exploration of space. Von Braun was mainly interested in management of the scientific effort on Antarctic research stations, logistics, habitation, and life support, and in using the barren Antarctic terrain like the glacial dry valleys to test the equipment that one day would be used to look for signs of life on Mars and other worlds.

In an internal memo dated January 16, 1969,[92] von Braun had confirmed to his staff that he would stay on as a center director at Huntsville to head the Apollo Applications Program.

It doesn’t mention gathering moonrock, true. However, given that the AAP was…

…established by USGS in the mid 1960’s to simulate astronauts collecting rock samples on the Moon using hardware developed for the Apollo program.

…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

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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:comment image

“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)

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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?

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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 ^^^

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

******Hi Fight Nonsense, I have answered this post in a new thread, above, as this is getting very skinny!****** ^^^^^^^^^

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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?”

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

Paperclip Nazi NASA : The “first moon landing” and Adolf Hitler
https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/nazi_adolf_hitler_chancellor.html

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

How appropriate than someone Gobell is posting so much disinformation and lies.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Keep up the anti-lunar psychops campaign going, well done. Do they pay you and MLS per post?

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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?

Punnoval
Punnoval

All you deniers and debunkers are full of crap. The real “moon shot” was discovered here:

Watch it and weep

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

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/

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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

MLS
MLS

How much of the telemetry data remains?

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Irrelevant

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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?

Mishko_
Mishko_

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.

Fight nonsensne
Fight nonsensne

“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.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

Being impervious to reason is not the same to winning an argument, Nonsense Fight…. I mean Fight Nonsense.

Fight nonsense
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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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

MLS
MLS

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.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Blah blah blah. More opinionated conspirtaorial claptrap.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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.

Refraktor
Refraktor

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Mishko_
Mishko_

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

Unfortunately, no scientist or engineer agrees with you, buddy. But keep up the good “work”.

Refraktor
Refraktor

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

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

Maggie
Maggie

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

Maggie
Maggie

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….

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

Re : Kubrick

Appendix: the Kubrick hypothesis
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/07/15/landings/

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

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

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

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.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

Now that really made me laugh … 🙂 especially the petunias 😉

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

Maggie again, with her fake news “contributions” from pathetic fake news websites.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

“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

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

MLS
MLS

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.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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?

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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.

Mishko
Mishko

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.

Mishko
Mishko

In those days the men allegedly were built of sterner stuff and had true grit.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

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

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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

Mishko
Mishko

Compartmentalisation. Manhattan Project is also an example of this.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

What Happened on the Moon?

AULIS Documentary Film

https://www.aulis.com/moon_pt1.htm

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

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

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

Correction :

666 months, 666 days later …

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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?

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

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

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Mishko
Mishko

Timing matters, and so does location/setting, and symbolism/signals.
I concur with Mr. T in pitying the fool that does not.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

Two weeks after receiving Johnson’s memo, Kennedy made his famous speech to Congress ( May 25, 1961 ) :

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth.”

911 days later, JFK was murdered …
https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/moon_landing_20_july_1969.html

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

You’re saying that the conspirators advertise their conspiracies by weaving them into fake coincidences?

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

That’s conjecture and stupidity, not evidence.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

Analysing The Astronauts – Full Episode

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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”.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

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

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Mishko
Mishko

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!

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

Apollo moon rocks lost in space? No, lost on Earth
https://phys.org/news/2009-09-apollo-moon-lost-space-earth.html

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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

flaxgirl

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.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

search : Gus Grissom lemon

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?
http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Well written piece. Makes a nice change for OffG in recent months.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/07/15/landings/

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

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.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

The Manhattan Project
130,000 quiet folk …

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

David S. Percy’s book, DARK MOON : Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, presents the argument that their were indeed “whistle blowers” :

Information is now available that throws into serious doubt the authenticity of the Apollo record, and new evidence clearly suggests that NASA hoaxed the photographs taken on the surface of the Moon. These disturbing findings are supported by detailed analysis of the Apollo images by professional photographer David S Percy ARPS and physicist Dr. David Groves PhD.

The numerous inconsistencies clearly visible in the Apollo photographic record are quite irrefutable. Some of the many errors evidenced in DARK MOON were no doubt due to haste and poor thinking. Others were deliberately planted by individuals dubbed by the authors as ‘Whistle-Blowers’, who were determined to leave evidence of the faking in which they were unwillingly involved.

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

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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?

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

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

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

You’re saying that the Saturn V launches were faked in a studio? Must have been a really BIG studio, many miles high.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell

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

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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”.

MLS
MLS

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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.

Mishko
Mishko

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.

MLS
MLS

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.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

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.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Dear Downvoters, prove otherwise.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

They can’t, of course. They can only managed some passive-aggressive down-voting.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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?

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

These are my ravings, simply to add balance to your pure speculation.

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.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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

It seems that the Soviets didn’t have nearly as much confidence in being able to fake it as you think.

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…

simply stating facts as they were ascertained at the time and repeated since”

and the onus is on me to…

PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that these missions did not occur

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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?

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

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.

These are my ravings, simply to add balance to your pure speculation.

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:

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?

This is so dishonest of you.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

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.

Mishko
Mishko

Slightly off-topic: do you appreciate Neil Degrasse-Tyson and his schtick as honest & sincere, or as an act/just some narratives?

Maggie
Maggie

Gardenfiend,
Have you not realised yet that this ‘Fight Nonsense’ is a TROLL?
Please stop feeding it.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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”.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

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.

MLS
MLS

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.

Fight nonsense
Fight nonsense

“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.

Mishko
Mishko

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.